Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JR Garcia


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   delete.  MBisanz  talk 00:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

JR Garcia

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Autobiography of actor who does not satisfy WP:ENTERTAINER. R andom H umanoid ( &rArr; ) 09:35, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

JR Garcia is a notable actor. please refer to http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2381495/

please do not delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrgarciaonline (talk • contribs) 09:39, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, does fail WP:ENTERTAINER. Oroso (talk)  09:44, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, silly bit-parts and an IMDB page do not a notable person make. *switches off yoda-mode*. Ironholds (talk) 13:36, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep in an inclusionist spirit, doesn't really meet WP:ENTERTAINER guidelines but the article now reads OKish, & Garcia will no doubt vigilantly observe himself for signs of increasing notability. Franciscrot (talk) 15:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * "An inclusionist spirit" is not good enough. If the article doesn't meet the guidelines, in this case because the person is currently non-notable, then it should be deleted. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball; who knows, his career could crash and burn in a year while we sit there with a page that blatantly fails the notability guidelines sitting around because "he might be notable in the future". Ironholds (talk) 15:08, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - while I congratulate the editor who improved the aesthetic quality of the article, this subject fails WP:ENTERTAINER, seemingly just an extra, or someone who holds very minor roles. With the amount of those there are in the world, we could fill an agency's portfolio many times over - but I don't believe they belong in an actual encyclopaedia. – Toon (talk)  17:40, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete vain vanity in vain (note username). JuJube (talk) 18:03, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. -Yupik (talk) 00:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.