Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barnaby Eaton-Jones

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|Barnaby Eaton-Jones}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Barnaby_Eaton-Jones Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Barnaby Eaton-Jones}})

Dubious notability. refs are his own theatre group, an amateur book review forum and an award site itself not notable enough for an article.Self promo basically. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:49, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:32, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:32, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:38, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:38, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

:Comment The article does seem very close to the contributor, in that the contributor has only added to articles concerning Barnaby's production. Still, I was able to find a BBC article[https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-36323768] and an article from The Chortle[https://www.chortle.co.uk/news/2019/03/06/42462/the_goodies_reunite_%E2%80%93_and_theyre_making_a_new_show] that mention Barnaby Eaton-Jones. That's not exactly WP:BASIC but it is something so I would say the article could be redeemed or at least merged into the Robin of Sherwood: The Knights Of The Apocalypse article. Though, even in that article it seems like Barnaby Eaton-Jones is over-quoted; specifically the quote in the production section seems like nothing more than advertising. Userqio (talk) 15:55, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete - Subject is non-notable. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ACTOR. If we can't find any secondary sources (I can't) then we need to delete this. Clearly a WP:NPROMO violation as well. Skirts⁸⁹ 14:34, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
• I tried to soruce it, and I suppose I could argue that he passes WP:CREATIVE by the skin of his teeth. I added some of the coverage of his blues Brothers tribute band. In addition, there is coverage of the theater company, reviews and articles about new productions, and and is a good deal of coverage of his career as a comedia, solo, as part of a duo, and as part of a trio - all in the local and regional press (I used a Proquest news archive search). That coverage, and his version of Robin Hood may pass CREATIVE. I'm honestly not sure.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:12, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

• Delete No evidence of notability. Trillfendi (talk) 16:39, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
• Delete. This is definitely a marginal case, but I don't think he meets GNG with significant mentions. It comes down to WP:CREATIVE crit.3 (being part of a major reviewed work.) Neither The Knights of the Apocalypse radio play or I'm Sorry I'll Read That Again clearly meet the threshold (and I'm going to want to take a look at their notability a bit more closely) and the dug-up mentions in this AfD don't clearly meet the significance threshold (the BBC one certainly doesn't as it's just a quote, the Chortle has a bit more but he's certainly not the subject and the publisher isn't as prestigious as the BBC anyhow.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:44, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
• delete not quite enough sources found.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:28, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.