Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jackson Davis (2nd nomination)


 * 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  No Consensus - the input in this discussion is split. The article's supporters are invited to strengthen its text, while those who favor deletion are welcome to revisit this subject later in the year if the article has seen no substantial improvements. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Jackson Davis
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Only known for appearing in lonelygirl15 web show, other wiseminor appearances in a number of shows. Fails WP:BIO, WP:NOTABILITY and WP:ENT. So delete and redirect to lonelygirl15. Otterathome (talk) 22:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Keep. This was already nominated for deletion once before and kept. If we're doing another nomination, I ask on what basis are we departing from the prior consensus? Jackson Davis was one of the primary cast members on Longlygirl15, and then the lead character of the Lg15: The Resistance spinoff. I agree that most webseries "stars" do not merit their own article because most series are obscure, but the primary cast members of lonelygirl15 are just as noteworthy as the actors on cable TV shows, e.g., even the minor actors on The Closer (shown on TNT in the U.S.) have their own wikipedia pages. On WP:ENT alone, he has a large female following online, just look at the comments to any of the 100s of videos he appears in online, especially when shirtless. On basic notability criteria, he has been covered by secondary source material such as the newspapers cited in the article. --Milowent (talk) 19:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Have you got any reliable sources, preferably third party ones to back up your claims? The local newspaper is only talking about him being in the lonelygirl series he has appeared in, and the new york times is a trivial mention in an article about the show too. Actors have to have multiple major roles in notable things, not just one. So it's a becoming a WP:1E too.--Otterathome (talk) 20:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Notability of a person is presumed "if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." That is the case in the Lancaster article, for sure.  (I see the article is no longer available for full online, but I do recall reading it at some point, as I follow a number of webseries.) I do not think actors "have" to have multiple major roles in notable things to be notable (look at the cast of The Closer again), though I agree it is a consideration for notability.  For example, "if the event is highly significant (which lonelygirl15 was), and the individual's role within it is a large one (which jackson davis' was), a separate article is generally appropriate."  And again, is there some change of circumstance for departing from the prior consensus on this article? --Milowent (talk) 21:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You can read the Lancaster article here. And the actors in the The Closer all appear to have had starring roles in other things. The only non-trivial source you have is a local paper from the subjects home town, and is only about the lonelygirl15 appearance, so its WP:1E. And if the event was 'highly significant' then there would be plenty of sources on him, for example Chesley Sullenberger and other examples given at WP:1E.--Otterathome (talk) 14:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Why do you keep ignoring my point about the prior AFD outcome? Your conclusion about the actors in the Closer is subjective as to whether they are more notable than Jackson Davis.  Surely that shouldn't be the dividing line for inclusion. --Milowent (talk) 18:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTAGAIN, also give me an example of somebody in The Closer show who you think is less notable.--Otterathome (talk) 18:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I will happy to provide that information once you answer my point about the prior AFD outcome. On what basis are you saying the consensus has changed?  As NOTAGAIN states: "An article that was kept in a past deletion discussion may still be deleted if deletion is supported by strong reasons that were not adequately addressed in the previous deletion discussion."  What are these "strong reasons"? --Milowent (talk) 19:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * See original nomination above. We still only have 1 non-trivial source, and he still hasn't starred in anything notable other than the original lg15 series..--Otterathome (talk) 20:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * So why has the consensus changed, then? Your points are simply retreads of the prior AFD.  Lg15: The Resistance, by the way, is notable separate from lonelygirl15.  I know they are related, but both are separately notable.  The latter was subject to much press on its own, invariably mentioning Jackson Davis as the star of the show. --Milowent (talk) 20:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't say the consensus has changed, I nominated again for the same reason as before which was 'Non-notable Youtube personality, with only claim to fame is a small tie-in with the Lonelygirl15 series. ' which is still true.--Otterathome (talk) 21:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * LG15:The Resistance was a separate show, as I just noted. And his fame is not based on a "small tie in" to Lonelygirl15, he was one of three major actors on the show.  That misapprehension triggered the prior AfD as well. --Milowent (talk) 21:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Keep. I see no new reason for this to be nominated for deletion again, after the concussion of the first was to keep. Jackson Davis played a big part in the Lonelygirl15 series which for a while was thought to be real and this alone is notable enough to keep. KindredPhantom (talk) 13:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTAGAIN. And being in one web show hoax doesn't pass our entertainer guidelines.--Otterathome (talk) 14:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There are numerous pages dedicated to the folks surrounding the The Blair Witch Project, a big web hoax of the late 1990s. I feel like we are getting a little contentious here and aren't sure why. --Milowent (talk) 19:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "Keep". The people placing these deletion notices are totally out of control and need to be stopped. They are totally spoiling the enjoyment of those who like to contribute to Wikipedia and hence its very survival as a valuable resource.  Anyone who challenges why this page exist clearly does not have a clue as to the World they live in and why it is important. This is just insulting and the person who did it should take a step back from the cliff before they do any more serious damage to Wikipedia and the culture of openness that has led to its development.--Modelmotion (talk) 04:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * "Keep". Lonelygirl15 was a pioneer in the area of the modern web series. Any serious discussion of the history of web series must include LG15. It is historically significant. Jackson Davis appeared in more episodes of LG15 then any other actor. If for no other reason then completion sake this article should not be deleted. Anyone researching web series would be interested in learning more about him. Mathieas (talk) 17:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Those above two keep votes look like WP:SPA accounts related to the subject.--Otterathome (talk) 18:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Umm, yeah you might want to check my joined date Otterboy, I've been a member of wikipedia for years. I don't edit much because of people like you, but I've been around since the Bomis days when wiki didn't exist. Mathieas (talk) 04:11, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * They are not. They are guilty, however, of being familiar with lonelygirl15 and which actors are notable and which aren't.  There are also some AfDs you did of non-notable characters that no one is voting to keep. --Milowent (talk) 03:14, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh you were all referred here from a lg15 website, I guess you can ignore my spa suggestion then.--Otterathome (talk) 14:57, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Delete. So far the main arguments I see against deleting it are that 1: It was already kept, and 2: That this person is part of a famous show, and therefore should be kept. If he's that huge of a part of the show, I think there should be more news articles if that is the case. It could be that, given time, that will happen, but right now it doesn't look like it. I'm still looking around for articles, but since most of them are focused on the show, and not on the person, it seems to me that the correct thing to do is to redirect it to the show, and merge any of the important information into that article. And before anyone brings it up, the renomination doesn't bother me because it's been over a year, and the arguments for keep were terrible to begin with. In the intervening 17 months, if there has not been more coverage then a few article about the show, then I think he's not notable, and should only be considered in connection with the main topic. Sodam Yat (talk) 18:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "If he's that huge of a part of the show, I think there should be more news articles if that is the case." How many is the proper number?  The way things stand now on wikipedia, the three primary actors from lonelygirl15 all have individual pages.  Minor actors pages are either up for deletion right now, or have been previously, deleted, and I think done so correctly.  Of the three actors (Jessica Rose, Yousef Abu Taleb, and Jackson Davis), I would agree that Jackson is the least notable of the three, but still crosses the line, also due to starring in two separate EQAL webseries (which the other two have not).  From the perspective of someone who is very knowledgable about web series (and not just lonelygirl15) I think this article crosses the line to keep.  I don't know how much weight y'all will give to that, as wikipedia once deleted lonelygirl15 itself. --Milowent (talk) 03:14, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The notability guideline states, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." Generally I interpret that as meaning that if there are at least two sources that cover the subject significantly, and if the sources are both independent of the subject and reliable, then the basic threshold for notability is established. WP:RS covers what is and isn't a reliable source in more detail. In the references in this article, except for the Lancaster Sunday News article, Jackson's name is barely mentioned at all. That does not constitute "significant coverage". If you find at least one more source, a reliable one that isn't a blog like NewTeeVee for example, that might do it. --  At am a chat 05:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Delete - It is entirely appropriate to renominate this article for deletion, the closing administrator in the previous AfD felt it necessary to comment that the arguments to keep the article were "thin on policy". That's another way of saying that those who wanted it kept couldn't give a good reason for it. Once again, nobody has given a reason why this person is notable. If you think that he is "historically significant", prove it by finding reliable sources to back up your claim A bunch of people saying "don't delete this because I like it" aren't going to succeed because this isn't a vote. I believe the only reason the last AfD survived was because while those arguing to keep weren't giving a legimitate reason to delete, nobody was giving a legitimate reason to delete either. --  At am a chat 00:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep There seems to be significant notability from several notable projects, so even a merge would be too limiting. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Question - Are you saying to keep it as is, or merge it into another article? And if so, which one? --  At am a chat 02:40, 9 August 2009 (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.