Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Hanks

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The result was keep or "nomination withdrawn", take your pick. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Hanks[edit]

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

No independent sources provided or found. Supposedly has a lead role in a non-notable production with "a cult following of sorts". Supposedly sometimes subs for his brother in videogames of Toy Story and such. Without substantial coverage in independent reliable sources, he is not notable. SummerPhD (talk) 15:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE Nominator has modified his opinion and offered a "speedy keep" down below. Seems to be a very courteous withdrawal. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:24, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Absolutely. While I understand we generally like to let at least 7 days go by before a non-admin closure, I feel this one is clear enough to consider closed, unless there is some remarkable reason for deletion hiding out there that I simply cannot imagine. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:14, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's no reason to doubt the claims that Jim Hanks has substituted for Tom Hanks in certain voiceover roles. See Entertainment Weekly and Seattle Times. And here's a People magazine article focusing on Jim and and a syndicated article about him and one from the Boca Raton News (the latter looks like a syndicated article, but I didn't see a syndicate mentioned). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Metropolitan90. Significant coverage exists. Claritas (talk) 15:40, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:ENT. Joe Chill (talk) 21:47, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One need not even dismiss his family ties to see that this individual passes WP:ENT [1]. Time to improve, not delete. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:20, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have just rolled by several edits to the article by the ban-evading sock who created the article. (Sock case updated.) - SummerPhD (talk) 03:03, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Correction to above - I meant "roll back" and this one was edited by, but not created by, the sock. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:08, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - I don't know how my Google-fu failed so badly on this one. The sources I found were truly quite weak. That said, the sources provided clearly demonstrate notability. Thanks all! - SummerPhD (talk) 03:03, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I am aware of quite a bit of significant coverage in addition to the sources mentioned. DollyD (talk) 11:44, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Article has been improved and sourced. Nominator has withdrawn, changing his opinion from deletion to a speedy keep. As there are no delete comments, this seems to be worth considering for a snow closure. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:46, 31 May 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.