Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David H. Thompson

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. Killiondude (talk) 06:26, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

David H. Thompson

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

This article is only supported by IMDb, which is not considered a reliable source. There is no indication that Thompson ever had a role that would count as a significant role in a major production. Unlike IMDb, Wikipedia is not meant to be an exhaustive directory of all actors to ever be credited in mainstream film productions. My search for additional sources showed multiple other people with this same name, but no sources on this Thompson.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:38, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:52, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:52, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:53, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:53, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article inappropriately sourced with an "External links" section "only" raises several issues that included WP:notability per GNG. Lacking reliable sources evidenced when searching for sources means the article will remain a small unimproved dictionary listing so also just an indiscriminate collection of information. Otr500 (talk) 11:24, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: IMDb has been deemed as not reliable by editing guidelines even though there has been discussions for inclusion. Important issues raised are potential copyright violations. On the Conditions of Use page, in a section entitled "Copyright": That "All content included on this site ... is the property of IMDb or its content suppliers and protected by United States and international copyright laws.", and if an article is only sourced with IMBd this certainly raises the concern. Another concern is that when this "crossover sourcing" occurs, an article is essentially unsourced. There are no actual references to cite, as IMDb is not considered reliable, then using it essentially as a wrongly sectioned general reference would be inappropriate. Contentious issues concerning IMDb has led to acceptability as an external link but not as a reliable source at Wikipedia: External links/Perennial websites. Otr500 (talk) 11:24, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- does not meet WP:NACTOR and significant RS coverage not found: I'm only seeing director listings for the subject. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:25, 3 January 2018 (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.