Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jake Sakson


 * 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. Tone 16:09, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Jake Sakson

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Minor child actor. Per 21st Young Artist Awards, only a nominee, not actually a winner. While the movie was reviewed in the New York Times, his part in the film Don't Look Under the Bed was minor and the review does not focus on it. No other coverage located. PROD ineligible as it was de-PROD'd in 2007. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 00:59, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 00:59, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 00:59, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 01:48, 14 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete a non-notable actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:06, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep: My initial response was to vote "delete", since the subject only seems to have one notable credit for the purposes of WP:NACTOR—but there are some sources out there, including a very in-depth write-up in the Los Angeles Times (the first three links): here, here, here and here. So, combined with the fact that he was nominated for a notable award (even though that doesn't technically meet WP:ANYBIO), the page might be justifiable on the grounds of WP:GNG. Dflaw4 (talk) 10:20, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * One lengthy writeup combined with a scant paragraph does not meet GNG. Awards confer notability only in that we expect recipients of notable awards to recieve press coverage (Oscar nominees, for example, are practically guaranteed coverage) - if there's no coverage, there's no weight to the notability claim. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 10:37, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I disagree—it's a very good write-up, and the sources are able to verify basically all of his roles. That being said, I don't intend to vote any higher than a "Weak Keep". Dflaw4 (talk) 00:18, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You're actively misinterpreting the GNG, which requires multiple significant sources. One significant source and a bunch of name-drops does not meet that standard. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 00:59, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * PMC, I don't think I am actively misinterpreting it. There is no absolute requirement for multiple sources (however, I provided two, which is "multiple"). If other editors disagree with my opinion, though, they will outvote me. I have no problem with that. Dflaw4 (talk) 13:42, 17 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom: and to be honest, I don't think a "weak keep" !vote amounts to much more than a self-admission that the sourcing is poor.   serial   # 22:21, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * serial, my admission is that the NACTOR argument is poor, as I pointed out above. Dflaw4 (talk) 00:15, 16 May 2020 (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.