Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Holloway (actor)


 * 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. There is consensus in favour of deleting this article at this time for failing to meet notability guidelines. The SandDoctor Talk 00:22, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

James Holloway (actor)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

minor actor, according to the article itself , his 2 best known roles -- are a unnamed minor character in a series , and a partially named, but exceedingly minor character in another.. The refs are PR or mere notices, like the NY Times  DGG ( talk ) 18:38, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:49, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:49, 5 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete roles as minor as his do not add up to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:50, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep The arguments from DGG, Johnpacklambert, and Shellwood are prejudice opinion and come from people who are not professionals in the field of the article's representation. There are substantial references listed for the article. If any of them are not of full credibility, challenge those and/or remove them. Look at the entire article and not just the first two sentences (which have been adjusted/modified). Let's make the page better, like the other peaceful community members have started to do. Judging from DGG's record, he is best known for nominating articles that are more than suitable for inclusion for deletion. Lastly, pages build overtime and this page has significant credibility to continue existing in its current without further interruption. comment added by 0705csd (talk • contribs) 15:43, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Despite the opinion of the article's creator, the deletion rationale is sound and well-founded. Subject does not meet WP:GNG, WP:NACTOR, WP:ANYBIO. There is a paucity of content cited from reliable sources that are unconnected with the subject and have a reputation for fact checking." -- Deep fried okra  ( talk ) 17:31, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - Just on its own the article makes no realistic attempt to demonstrate notability, the refs are lightweight and mostly interview based and give a good impression of being based on press releases. It signally fails WP:GNG. What concerns me more is the strangely familiar text of the article's defence above by its SPA author. Is somebody being paid here ?  Velella  Velella Talk 22:55, 8 October 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.