Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack Ashton

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 keep‎. Daniel (talk) 19:02, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Ashton[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

While he had a main role in Call the Midwife a WP:BEFORE search didn't show evidence of multiple significant roles to pass WP:NACTOR. The current sources in the article are focused on his relationship and family and I don't think they go into enough detail about him to pass WP:GNG. Suonii180 (talk) 15:58, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, and United Kingdom. Suonii180 (talk) 15:58, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG and 5x expansion of this former stub, which had 1,595,752 page views since it was first created six years ago. The article now has a sizeable Career section covering Ashton's major television roles (beyond Call the Midwife), as well as his theatre performances (A Streetcar Named Desire at the Donmar and lead in Strangers on a Train) and his starring role in a US film. We also find out what his real name was and how he chose his stage name. The most in-depth articles about him do incorporate quotes of Ashton himself, but also include facts that were presumably researched and/or fact-checked by journalists and editorial staff, including Radio Times, The Bristol Post, and MyLondon, and there are numerous reviews of his stage roles (e.g., The Times and What's On Stage), and one by the The Independent Critic about Instrument of War. (NB: Not sure if you were using Google for WP:BEFORE, but increasingly we're finding that it's not fit for purpose, particularly for single-parameter searches; Bing seems to perform much better in that regard.) Cielquiparle (talk) 07:56, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Suonii180 Respectfully request that this nomination is withdrawn. There are many viable candidates for deletion that actually do require attention, but this is not one of them. I have now invested the time to improve the article, and it seems fair not to waste anyone else's. Cielquiparle (talk) 08:01, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Now clearly passes GNG thanks to the hard work of Cielquiparle. 21,673 pageviews in the past 30 days shows that our readers want to read about the subject, and we now have an article that does it justice. Edwardx (talk) 11:47, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep great work Cielquiparle Earnsthearthrob (talk) 20:04, 29 December 2023 (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.