Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Jacox

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. postdlf (talk) 02:13, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David Jacox[edit]

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

99% of stunt performers/coordinators don't get enough media notice to qualify for either WP:GNG or WP:ACTOR. He's not in the same class as Yakima Canutt or Rémy Julienne. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:04, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm not sure an unsubstantiated sweeping generalisation is helpful in this discussion, and certainly does not constitute an appropriate argument for specific article deletion. According to Wikipedia:Notability, 'Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity.' Stunt performers and coordinators perform an important role in the film-making industry, and I believe that selected persons within that category, including those with long careers and award nominations, should have Wikipedia pages. Fififolle (talk) 22:08, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 12:25, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 12:25, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. You don't see an "appropriate argument" for deletion? How about sources that satisfy GNG? None of the current references qualify. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:05, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete cannot find any secondary sources for notability--Mevagiss (talk) 20:58, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:48, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep More than one source on the page satisfies GNG, and the others are independent, if not secondary. Fififolle (talk) 23:43, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. Which sources would those be? The organization for which he is a member? That violates GNG's "independent of the subject" requirement. Two announcements of award nominations? Not "significant coverage", plus he didn't win. An interview by somebody named Kempton Lam? Not "reliable", nor is the interview a "secondary source". That leaves the "How to be a real, stunt car driver" article, which fails to address "the topic directly and in detail" and is not a "secondary source", as his claims are from his own mouth, and aren't particularly notable in any case. Have you actually read GNG? Clarityfiend (talk) 01:17, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:03, 1 December 2014 (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.