Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Bearden

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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:41, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Bearden[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:BIO guidelines; sources (apart from IMDB) are all dead links or not relevant. The newspaper coverage appears to be unavailable online now and may contain some information, but is probably only local news. Peter E. James (talk) 22:26, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources are not WP:RS. Google returns blogs, social sites, or other people. News hits are all behind paywalls, but summaries indicate they are standard stuff like obits, local social events, etc. Nothing that could be considered significant coverage. DarkAudit (talk) 22:49, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Note that The Last Days he appeared in was a super-low-budget war film, not the Gus van Sant film. And it's not clear which film called The Box he was in because (like some other films on his filmography) it's not listed in his IMDb page. And whoever created the WP page has never heard of disambiguation. He's simply nowhere near being notable, with no roles in major films. Even if he did play "Business man" in Muckfuppet, which sounds a classic. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:36, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as subject fails to cross the verifiability or notability thresholds. I've tried several intensive searches of the Daily Home archives and can't find an article about Jonathan Bearden or any article with the cited titles. (The lack of exact dates is also problematic.) Sources need not be online in full-text nor need they be free: offline and print sources are perfectly acceptable... but they do need to exist. - Dravecky (talk) 23:38, 30 May 2012 (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.