Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jimmy Clabots


 * 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   keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 23:33, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Jimmy Clabots

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:ENT with a few bit roles and uncredited extras in crowd scenes.  Pax 05:00, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  07:10, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  07:10, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  07:10, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  07:10, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep per lack of nom's WP:BEFORE of this improvable stub of an actor who has coverage to meet WP:GNG and pushes at WP:ENT. Yes, the actor has had small roles. So what? All actors have had small roles. For ENT, we look only to the major... such as major character Jarod in Another Gay Sequel: Gays Gone Wild! and his being chosen for eleven episodes of Gigolos. We do not improperly misjudge an article's topic and needing work is not a valid deletion rationale.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 12:36, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Mike, you've posted the same Keep remark into several AfDs of mine concerning several specious bios hanging on by a gossamer strand, criticizing me for not undertaking an exhaustive hunt for esoterica establishing minimal notability. Meanwhile, AfDs for guys like Rahsaan Islam (relisted same page here) sit without anyone unloading on the nominator for failing to improve an allegedly "improvable" article. Likewise, no one hassled the nominator of the Lars Walker AfD, despite the fact that he could have located the same source establishing notability that I eventually did.
 * The double-standard between how foreign megastars and domestic infinitesimals (especially those majoring in the, ahem, salacious arts) are treated on this encyclopedia is simply appalling. Pax 09:58, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Rcsprinter123    (intone)  @ 20:27, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep It does not appear the nominator did due diligence before nominating this article. MichaelQSchmidt's brief efforts have shown this article can be improved, as such I don't think it should be deleted. Chillum 17:51, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep no valid deletion rationale. Easily passes GNG.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  18:08, 19 January 2015 (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.