Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ron Clinton Smith

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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:40, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Clinton Smith[edit]

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

I first saw this page when I was googling the 2007 film, The Mist only to find the name and the occupation of the actor and the filmography. I prefer seeing his information in other websites like IMDb and Rotten Tomatoes.

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and United States of America. AllyD (talk) 19:47, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:52, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This page has been deleted, but It came back when I was checking if it's still present in the page about the articles for deletion/Log/2023 January 16 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4lepheus B4ron (talk • contribs) 16:15, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @4lepheus B4ron: It had been deleted after you had tagged it for speedy deletion per WP:G7, but then undeleted when it was called to the deleting admin's attention that G7 did not apply in this case, as has already been explained on your user talk page. As for the article itself, I'm having trouble finding references outside of IMDb and the usual array of other performer databases, so the subject may not meet WP:GNG (haven't gone deeply enough to formally !vote either way), but "It's been a stub for years" is not in itself a sufficient reason to delete an article by whatever method. --Finngall ^talk 19:56, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:33, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @4lepheus B4ron: Please add new comments at the bottom of the page rather than continually editing your nomination statement above. Your changing of "It's been a stub for years." to "I prefer seeing his information in other websites like IMDb and Rotten Tomatoes." removed the context for my reply above--this is not conducive to a proper discussion. And where you prefer to find information has no bearing here--we're talking about Wikipedia policy now. --Finngall ^talk 16:45, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:10, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ❯❯❯ Raydann ^(Talk) 10:15, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Searches found nothing notable. CT55555(talk) 01:59, 11 February 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.