Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RJ Fetherstonhaugh

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. Sole keep !vote is blocked as a sock. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:44, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RJ Fetherstonhaugh

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. WP:BLP of an actor, referenced only to IMDb and glancing namechecks of his existence in articles that aren't about him. As always, Wikipedia is not a place where every actor is automatically entitled to an article just because he exists as a working actor -- reliable source coverage about him, verifying that he passes one or more WP:NACTOR criteria, is required for an article to become earned -- until that can be done, which it hasn't here, it's WP:TOOSOON. Bearcat (talk) 03:26, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He is scheduled to be in a series "slated" to release next year. This is way to soon to have an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:21, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree that it's TOOSOON. There may well be coverage in the future--but there also may not be, and there's really nothing to be gained by holding open a one-sentence entry in case of coverage we don't even know will necessarily come. This will be very easy to recreate later, if new sources justify it. Innisfree987 (talk) 19:03, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep should be kept as at least a stub. Jurnee457 (talk) 06:21, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A person gets a Wikipedia article by being the subject of enough substantive coverage in reliable sources. There is no such thing as any claim of notability that entitles a person to "keep a stub" in the absence of enough reliable source coverage to support it — notability is a measure of sourceability, not of what anybody thinks about the "importance" of any unsourced or poorly sourced claims. And there is simply no such thing as "some people are notable enough for stubs while others are notable enough for longer articles", either — notability has no bearing on how short or long an article is allowed to be, but only on whether or not an article is allowed to exist at all. Once notability is properly covered off, any article is allowed to be as long or as short as the substance of what there is to cover allows it to be — beyond the basic question of whether an article is allowed to exist at all, there are no further gradations of notability that govern an article's permitted length. Bearcat (talk) 17:36, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:08, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:08, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ronandaussie. Socks don't get !votes here. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:40, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.