Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vernon Jones (actor)

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. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:19, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vernon Jones (actor)

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

Wikipedia is not a database for run-of-the-mill missing persons. The sources on the article -- not much different from the ones I saw in a WP:BEFORE search -- were missing person databases themselves. I could not find any trace of significance from his supposed acting career so if, by some slim chance, this article is kept it should be retitled "Disappearance of Vernon Jones". TheGracefulSlick (talk) 15:30, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:51, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:51, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not ROUTINE (missing persons are not run of the mill events), however fails GNG. There is a 48 hours segment, and a few bits and pieces, but nothing close to enough to pass GNG (in article and in a BEFORE). Icewhiz (talk) 10:06, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep! What the hell is going on here?! Why are all these article being deleted? With the exception of three articles which I wrote that were not well sourced (There are some other people's articles that shouldn't have been deleted as well), the deletion of all these articles has been totally ridiculous and this is going prevent a lot of editors to wanting to even write articles in the first place. What's the use of writing an article if someone is just going to delete it for what they think is a good reason. I am seriously now considering how much more I even want to write anymore when my articles are going right down the drain for I don't know what. This was a well known actor and his disappearance is notable. You just might have (but not yet for sure) helped to put a end to one of Wikipedia editors greatest contributions from continuing to keep happening as I am now wondering if editing is now even worth it. Davidgoodheart (talk) 06:00, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Davidgoodheart: - please see WP:SIGCOV and WP:NCRIME. What I am look for (as someone who has !vote keep on some of these) - is significant coverage - newspapers, books, journal articles, TV, etc. - which should be beyond minor local coverage, self published books, or missing person databases. This particular one - I only see one source in the article that supports this - the 48hours segment. And in my own WP:BEFORE (to look for more sources) - I don't see much else. To make a case for keep - find the sources. If you show WP:RS covering the subject - making a case for keep will be easier. Icewhiz (talk) 06:39, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The disappearance is run-of-the-mill and I'm struggling to find anything that justifies the claim made above that this is about a "well known actor". - Sitush (talk) 08:38, 17 October 2017 (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.