Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Mason Scott


 * 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. Michig (talk) 17:52, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Tim Mason Scott

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Subject is a clear case of WP:TOOSOON. Subject Fails WP:BLPNOTE Cult of Green (talk) 11:37, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 02:33, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AlanS (talk) 02:44, 16 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - Fails WP:ENT and WP:BIO. Has not had significant roles in "multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions". Further more there is a distinct lack of any in depth significant "multiple published secondary sources" about the subject. AlanS (talk) 02:45, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. I can't find any coverage to show that he is notable enough for an article at this point in time. None of the roles seems to have been substantial enough to have garnered him coverage and his upcoming film is equally non-notable at this point in time. As I have a very strong suspicion that this was made by a friend of Scott's, I'd like to ask that you not take this personally. Notability guidelines are very, very strict on Wikipedia and this doesn't mean that he isn't or couldn't be a good actor or that the upcoming film may not make it big. It's just that he fails notability guidelines at this point in time. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   05:05, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Along with the reasons given above, at the moment, the article fails #4 and #5 of WP:PROMO. Should this person the criteria for inclusion down the road the article can always be resurrected. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 15:02, 19 August 2014 (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.