Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Josh Hammond


 * 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. While WP:NACTOR might be met, consensus is pretty clear that WP:GNG is not. Yunshui 雲 水 08:28, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Josh Hammond

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A throughough unremarkable career. Some of the films he appeared in it is open to question why we even have articles on them, others we don't have articles on. The only source is IMDb which is not reliable and not supposed to be used on Wikipedia. I search for sources turned up a college football player of the same name but no additional sources for this person John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:55, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:58, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:58, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 14:34, 2 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete. Can't see any way he could possibly satisfy either the actor or general notability criteria. Extremely minor roles and no coverage of note. PK650 (talk) 07:09, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisted per Deletion review/Log/2020 April 12
 * KEEP Notable. Hammond has many film and tv roles. I added refs. SWP13 (talk) 19:20, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep: Sadly, finding reliable sources for the subject is proving difficult. While I thank SWP13 for adding references to the page, I'm not sure that those references help meet WP:GNG. I found this reference, but I'm not sure if there is a consensus on the reliability of the website: https://www.efilmcritic.com/review.php?movie=5056. There could well be more and better sources out there, so I hope progress can be made. I am voting "Weak Keep" at the moment, based on the fact that the subject has had numerous supporting roles in big films and some starring roles in less notable ones, too. Sourcing is a real issue, though. Dflaw4 (talk) 04:55, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per reasons above. Gritmem (talk) 20:05, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 01:34, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. Notability not demonstrated to the WP:GNG standard.  Looking at refs 1-3 (refs 4-14 only support verification of the subject being in the movie)
 * Ref 1 https://filmgator.com/actor/josh-hammond  Very brief personal biography facts, no secondary source content.  Does not meet the GNG.
 * Ref 2 blu-ray.com/Josh-Hammond/454612/  Word for word the same information as Ref 1, but from a less suitable source.  No, not even a worthy source for the article.
 * Ref 3 https://www.tribute.ca/people/josh-hammond/11233/  Almost good enough.  But not.  The entire content that is secondary source content is "Josh Hammond has successfully made the transition to working as an actor."  The rest is directory information facts, primary source information.  This summary has no named author.  The secondary source information is not of nearly sufficient depth.  If this is the best there is, https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0358717/bio?ref_=nm_ov_bio_sm is apprpraite, Wikipedia is not.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:00, 20 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete. Other than Jeepers Creepers 2, hardly any of the subject's films have received a general theatrical release that I can find information about. Nor does he seem to have received any profile-type coverage in reliable sources, that is, newspapers or magazines writing about him and his career, as opposed to articles which merely mention his name in a film review or websites which basically recapitulate his IMDb page. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:44, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * KEEP WP:NACTOR says "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." Two of the three films he was in mentioned in the lead have him listed as a main character, that a significant role in those films deemed notable enough by Wikipedia standards to have an article.  D r e a m Focus  05:14, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * What is the evidence of the significance of the roles? Was his performance of the role reviewed or commented upon?  A description of the character is not a review of the actor.  "Listed" is directory information, primary source information, can you find any information that uses adjectives?  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:25, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * In the top billing. If you are a main character, that's a significant role in the film. Black Cadillac (film) is about "Three young men" and he is listed as one of those three.  The Brotherhood (2001 film) you can read the plot and see the character he plays is a main character.   D r e a m Focus  05:32, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * At The Brotherhood (2001 film), it has three references, and none of the three say anything about Josh Hammond, so this WP:NACTOR point is creating a house of cards. It doesn't overcome his failure to meet the GNG.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:16, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Question: Are his roles in the shows mentioned in the lead known and are there sources for them? Appears to be notable on the basis of appearances in multiple well-known productions and I’m inclined to agree with on keeping.   Woerich   (talk)   05:57, 20 April 2020 (UTC). Keep. I just read the comments again and somehow I missed where Dream Focus had literally answered my question. Fever doesn’t help.   Woerich   (talk)   06:02, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete even if the subject does meet WP:NACTOR that standard is supposed to indicate that the subject is likely to be notable through meeting the WP:GNG, meeting it does not guarantee that the subject should be included. The GNG requires significant coverage in third-party reliable sources. Of the sources currently in the article:
 * , and  are copies of the subject's IMDB profile, so either they're mirrors of IMDB or the subject's agent submitted the same biography to both sites. Either way it doesn't count and IMDB is not a reliable source.
 * looks distinctly like promotional material from the subject or his agent.
 * ,, , , , , , , merely confirm that the subject appeared in some film and do not represent significant coverage.
 * is a review of a film he was in, all it says about him is that "Josh Hammond has the dubious claim of being the only member of the cast that speaks his lines halfway naturally", which is not significant coverage.
 * is an interview with the subject published in a blog, which isn't a reliable source.
 * , to judge from the Google Books preview, just namechecks him as being in a film, which is not significant coverage.
 * None of these come close to demonstrating that the subject meets the GNG, and for a current US actor any references would likely be easily available.  Hut 8.5  07:38, 20 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Nowhere is that written down. People who hate the secondary guidelines keep repeating the same lie.  When the notability guidelines were created, it was determined things were notable by various means.  WP:NOTABILITY clearly states "A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right".  That's why they exist.  You can be notable for your accomplishment in your specific field even if you don't have any random media out there talking about you.   D r e a m Focus  13:46, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure, it's written down. NACTOR is one of the additional criteria of WP:BIO, which says People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. So passing NACTOR means you are likely to be notable, not that you are notable, and doesn't automatically mean the subject should be included. WP:BIO also suggests that articles which meet one of the additional criteria but fail the general criteria should be merged somewhere else, which is not what you do with notable topics. I would be much more sympathetic to keeping the article if it was about a topic which may not be covered in available sources on the internet, but an active American actor is exactly the sort of person who would have "random media out there talking about you" if they were at all important.  Hut 8.5  16:54, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per Hut 8.5. Sources aren't sufficient to sustain an article. Reyk YO! 15:50, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per Hut 8.5. The sources are not reliable or significantly about the subject to pass WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. --Enos733 (talk) 03:22, 21 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.