Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacob Kemp

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Will be happy to userfy the content on request. – Juliancolton | Talk 01:35, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Kemp[edit]

Jacob Kemp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Minor actor with very little to show for--a minor part in a TV show, local repertory. Nominated for a minor award, but didn't win it. Doesn't seem to pass the GNG, doesn't seem to have won anything that would make him notable. Drmies (talk) 02:07, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:08, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:08, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now and draft/userfy if needed as although he's accomplished quite a bit, my searches summarized it to nothing suggesting further addition and better notability. There's not much at his IMDb either. SwisterTwister talk 06:47, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep the good amount of sources in the article give me the indication that he is notable. All of the sources are from reputable newspapers such as the Boston Globe, the Inquirer, etc. He's also been cast in roles in several notable TV shows, such as Black-ish. Spaghetti07205 (talk) 08:41, 4 August 2015 (UTC) Struck comment by WP:Sock. Flyer22 (talk) 15:19, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep There have been other actors who have far less notable accomplishments (not that their accomplishments are nothing, just not "recurring role on a renewed series" or "national tour" accomplishments) whose pages completely escape flagging. The problem with this article lies in its tone, not in Kemp's "lack of notability." 76.19.139.48 (talk) 13:24, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep He's a young up-and-coming actor who is in one of the lead roles in a major touring company. Passes GNG due to mention in Boston Globe, Inquirer, Herald Sun, and Backstage Magazine. Reliable sources with many citations and appearance in multiple secondary sources.Jsamen1 (talk) 14:43, 4 August 2015 (UTC) — Jsamen1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • Sorry, what's "strong" mean here? "Mention" is not enough for passing the GNG, though I'm glad that you have read up on our policies before making your first edit. Drmies (talk) 20:23, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Very minor coverage in mostly minor and/or local sources. WP:TOOSOON in my opinion. I find it funny how 2 newly created accounts (sockpuppets?) plus an account involved in an ongoing ANI constitute the 3 "strong keep" votes. Pretty pretty pretty...pretty pretty pretty pretty funny, as Larry David would say. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 14:53, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you're referring to User:76.19.139.48 as one of those "newly created accounts" (you're not referring to me, you're referring to me as the "account involved in an ongoing ANI"), please note that she has been editing as far back as 2012 – that's not what I'd call a "newly created account". Spaghetti07205 (talk) 15:00, 4 August 2015 (UTC) Struck comment by WP:Sock. Flyer22 (talk) 15:19, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails notability guidelines for actors, may make the grade some day - but not today. Scr★pIronIV 15:23, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the keep rationale of Jsamen1 above. Passing mentions, "up and coming", any other flags for WP:NOTYET. Guy (Help!) 22:45, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think both sides have been exaggerating the case for keeping/deleting. (Aside: There is no question that the page used to be very spammy/self-promotional, but that's mostly been fixed and besides should be independent of Notability.) Does the subject pass the WP:GNG? Without question, yes: there are multiple articles devoted to the subject (significant coverage) in respected newspapers (independent, reliable sources), so it clearly passes the GNG. However, passing the GNG is not necessarily enough—does the subject meet Notability standards? Here I think the applicable policy is WP:ENT ...the subject doesn't meet ENT #3, I don't know about ENT #1 (it depends on how one defines "significant" and "multiple"), and it could be argued that he meets ENT #2. I'm philosophically an Inclusionist, so since this is a grey area (clearly meets GNG and at least partially meets ENT), I vote Keep. In any case, if the final consensus is to delete, I agree with User:SwisterTwister to userify so should the subject become more notable later, it's easier to bring back this material. Luke (talk) 20:57, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above mention before SwisterTwister, W1i2k3i45 (talk) 18:01, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Newsies (musical) as almost all of the coverage Kemp has received is in relation to this one event. Hirolovesswords (talk) 04:16, 8 August 2015 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jacob_Kemp&oldid=1076502005"