Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jamie Draven


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Owen&times; &#9742;  11:29, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Jamie Draven

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

No significant in-depth coverage. All I could find were passing mentions (more or less like these 1, 2, 3, 4) and Wiki mirrors. Moreover, the article is unreferenced. X (talk) 10:20, 22 April 2024 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 15:51, 29 April 2024 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 16:46, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television,  and England.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  10:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete: Appears to fail WP:NACTOR. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:51, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment This should not go without consensus, being a crummy unreferenced junk with only an IMDb link. At the very least it should be drafted if not deleted. X (talk) 03:13, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Xoak: We typically do draftify if someone has offered to work on it in the AfD. But if we go ahead with draftification and no one is interested in actually working on the article, then it'll just get WP:CSD G13 deleted in 6 months anyways. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:44, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep. It is true that he's not terribly prolific, but he did have a major role in a highly influential film so I think he scrapes by. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:46, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * He doesn't need to be prolific, just someone with adequate sig coverage would do. And regarding playing significant roles, WP:NACTOR states The person has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions; or The person has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. He fails these two as well as I'd not say that "the person hasn't made unique, prolific, or innovative contributions to the field of entertainment", in any case we'd still need a source for this statement. And If no sig coverage sources can be added at all, then this should not be kept. X (talk) 17:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete: Unsourced BLP. Fails GNG and NBIO. No sources in article, above keep vote found no sources, BEFORE found nothing that meets WP:SIRS, addressing the subject directly and indepth, more of the same non-SIGCOV that nom found. BLPs require strong sourcing, this has none.  // Timothy :: talk  02:57, 14 May 2024 (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.