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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:08, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Booton (actor) (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)

Non notable person Kbabej (talk) 01:24, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TCN7JM 01:36, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. TCN7JM 01:37, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Doesn't seem to meet WP:ENT. He may have played a significant role in mildly-notable films, but no reliable sources substantiate this, and he fails the other two WP:ENT criteria. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 02:10, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep unless either one of the two films MILF (film) or The Newest Pledge is deemed non-notable (in which case, the non-notable film's article should be nominated for deletion first). I've added IMDb entries for the two films. For the purposes of who starred in a given film, the film's credits screen is reliable, and IMDb is both a reliable and a secondary source. Disclaimer: I am the AFC reviewer who accepted this submission. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:56, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't really think his role in either film is very significant. He is a supporting actor in both, and fails the other criteria in WP:ENT. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 03:02, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I guess it boils down to how "significant" a role has to be in order to be "significant" by Wikipedia standards. Note that the standard is "significant" not "very significant." Supporting actor roles can be anything from a minor speaking role to one step away from being a main character. I haven't seen the two films and I don't know how "significant" this persons role was in either film. However, on the IMDb pages, he was listed as one of three "stars" in both movies, implying that he played at least the 3rd-most-important character in each one. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:12, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Can't say I disagree with your rationale; I haven't seen either film myself. I still am not convinced the guy's notable, though, based on the lack of WP:RS coverage. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 04:10, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm willing to concede that this may be one of those rare cases where a person meets a more specific notability guideline and is therefore presumed to be notable, but upon closer examination he fails WP:N. Note to the closing admin: This should only be deleted if either he fails WP:ENT (I contend that he passes WP:ENT, but that's obviously open to interpretation and discussion) or if he passes WP:ENT and is therefore presumed to be notable, but someone takes the trouble to do a deep search for evidence of notability and comes up dry or mostly dry. I am requesting that if the article is deleted, the closing admin specify whether, in his opinion of the consensus, the person fails WP:ENT or, despite passing WP:ENT, has been shown to fail WP:N. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:46, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This seems more like a personal resume. I don't think he is notable enough for Wikipedia. —kbabej 08:19, 18 August 2013
• Delete - Non-notable actor. IMDB is not a reliable site. Caffeyw (talk) 10:22, 23 August 2013 (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.