Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack Edwards (Tracy Beaker)

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. Favonian (talk) 17:12, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Edwards (Tracy Beaker)[edit]

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

The article fails to address WP:NACTOR and extended searches for reliable sources has revealed nothing of significant impact. The article was previously created and merged to The Story of Tracy Beaker (TV series) (via PROD) as Jack Edwards (actor) and current version has PROD and BLPPROD removed so moving to AfD for wider discussion. Fæ (talk) 16:46, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 16:47, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 16:47, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the disambiguation on this article is telling... this person has only been involved in one notable work so far, and hasn't drawn any secondary source coverage on his own. Gigs (talk) 17:06, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an unreferenced BLP, IMDB is not a reliable source. WuhWuzDat 17:11, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless the upcoming role in Casualty (TV series) is going to be significant. An appearance in a major children's TV series is worth at least a redirect, but we already have that from the more appropriate Jack Edwards (actor). (Might also be worth an entry on the Jack Edwards disambiguation page. However, WP:NACTOR requires significant multiple roles, and so far, we only have one. Personally, I don't like having articles on child actors unless they are unequivocally notable, because they are easy targets for attack edits, but in this case I'd give the same verdict for an adult actor. He may well become notable later, in which case the article can return. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 21:06, 16 November 2010 (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.