Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sterling Beaumon


 * 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. X clamation point  06:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Sterling Beaumon

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

A minor actor, both in age and in terms of actual impact. Much puffery, but nothing solid underneath. CalendarWatcher (talk) 15:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - You are not a minor actor when you appear on the cover of a movie DVD . His resume is impressive having accumulated numerous commercials and guest appearances on popular TV shows.  He played the main role in a 2008 children's movie.  Articles on all his co-stars exist.   Fighting for Justice (talk) 15:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If the 'movie' is a straight-to-DVD film, then yes, you could very well be a minor actor. In other words, that proves nothing. The 'numerous commercials' also means little--certainly not lasting fame--nor do the 'articles on his co-stars', as they're not the subject of this discussion. Some look like they should be nominated at AFD, but that's neither here nor there. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 15:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * A lot of major actors have movies that go straight to DVD's. This movie was like that on purpose, it was never intended to go into the big screen because it was based on a children's book.  If you go to You Tube you'll see that the movie had a major debut.  His numerous guest appearances is strong evidence that he's had in impact.  Fighting for Justice (talk) 16:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * A lot of major actors who are down on their luck work on straight-to-DVD films, also, but that's neither here nor there: working on a straight-to-DVD conveys no fame or importance to the actor. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 10:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - IMDB lists 18 items for this actor including multiple appearances on programs such as Lost, Bones, Scrubs, Heroes, Cold Case, House, and more. If this guy doesn't meet "notable" standards, then there's a lot of deleting that needs to be done with actors here... Proxy User (talk) 16:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, important roles such as 'Brat #1' and 'Kid with gun'. And yes, much deletion needs to happens, but they're not relevant here. And, of course, having a series on minor parts on TV programmes doesn't impart fame.--CalendarWatcher (talk) 08:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - He's got two roles like that.  You fail to recognize that he starred in a movie and had notable roles in notable TV series.  Fighting for Justice (talk) 04:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep and find reliable sources: I'm sure there are some. ╟─ Treasury Tag ► contribs ─╢ 20:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - IMDB is a reliable source, and it's pretty clear that this actor has had substantial roles in many notable television productions. Proxy User (talk) 16:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, IMDB isn't a reliable source, since it's a user-added compilation, much like a, well, Wiki. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 10:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - This article features him, and he is a significant enough actor for Variety to take notice. Some more sourcing would be good but this is enoug to scrape by for notability. -- Whpq (talk) 18:46, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Variety is a trade publication, so I fail to see how that argues for wide repute. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 10:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - Lost, Bones, Scrubs, Heroes, Cold Case, House, 7th Heaven... That's a lot of TV. Proxy User (talk) 04:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - Yes, it's a lot of TV. He's got more experience then some adult actors.  Aside, from acting he sings and figure skates.  He's very notable.   It's not like he did one movie and that's it;  like in this child actor Drew Mikuska.  Fighting for Justice (talk) 06:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You'll have to offer more proof than assertion about this so-called notability. Having a series on minor parts on TV programmes doesn't impart fame.--CalendarWatcher (talk) 10:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - We use trade publications all the time to establish notability within whichever area the subject falls. Variety does not cover every single actor.  By using Variety, we can gauge this person's notability within his field of endeavor which is acting.  A character actor might never get mainstream coverage because he isn't a star, or drugged out and puching papparazzi in the face.  Yet may still get recognition within his profession, and bbe notable and noted in trade publications. -- Whpq (talk) 10:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. The Signal is a newspaper, but it's local.  If that were all it took, we could use the Lafayette Journal & Courier to source my notability, and we wouldn't have had the arguments against it.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 03:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Lots of tiny roles, but I see nothing in IMDB that adds up to meeting WP:CREATIVE. THF (talk) 14:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep- According to Kristin Dos Santos at E!, Beaumon has a record deal and will also continue to appear in Lost. --Jackieboy87 (talk · contribs) 15:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete. The only arguments for "keep" are inherited notability; he appears notably in a notable show, and hence is notable.  That's not adequate.  (And Variety does cover every actor whose agent requests coverage....)  I may be able to rebut other comments, but I don't see a real argument for a keep yet.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 03:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Evidence has not been presented that he is the star of either movie which the claim was presented above, and even if he was the star of two (marginally) notable movies, that wouldn't be enough. Thinking it over, THF said it best, above..."lots of tiny roles."  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 17:03, 6 March 2009 (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.