Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jamie Oram


 * 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.  Sandstein  05:38, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Jamie Oram

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Minor actor failing WP:NACTOR, sourced by local press, wikipedia and his agent's website. Author has, and conceals, COI. WP:BEFORE shows only UGC & listings. Cabayi (talk) 20:38, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 20:38, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 20:38, 19 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete a non-notable actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:06, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep Keep: I'm not so much concerned about WP:NACTOR as I am WP:GNG. There are a number of reliable Australian sources which review the animated film in which he starred, Ploey—but the subject himself only seems to get mere mentions. I hope someone can locate more substantial sourcing. Dflaw4 (talk) 12:33, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Update: I am upgrading my vote to a "Keep", because I overlooked the Daily Gazette source (reference 1). It's not enough, on its own, to establish WP:GNG, but it certainly helps. And I don't see the point in deleting the article when the subject may very well meet the notability standards quite comfortably in the foreseeable future. Dflaw4 (talk) 10:27, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Because he isn't notable now. WP:CRYSTAL. Cabayi (talk) 10:32, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 02:24, 27 March 2020 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:55, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per "mere mentions". That is evidence that notability is lacking. No problem with recreation with reliable sourcing. There is no inherent or inherited notability and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Otr500 (talk) 02:27, 8 April 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.