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. Arguments for Delete are based on policy. Quoting NEXIST is not a substitute for finding sources.
Owen×☎ 23:40, 27 January 2024 (UTC)reply
There is some coverage, but I am not convinced he meets
WP:GNG or
WP:ENT. Has been in
CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now get it resolved.
Boleyn (
talk) 17:54, 13 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 20:55, 20 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete - Fails notability guidelines for actors. There are some minor mentions in a couple of news articles but they do not convince me of sufficient notability.
Sgubaldo (
talk) 21:07, 24 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. Passes the GNG even with what is in the article. And, importantly, per the golden
WP:NEXIST rule: Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. AFDISNOTCLEANUP applies.
gidonb (
talk) 03:28, 26 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: BLP, Fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in article and BEFORE found nothing with WP:SIGCOV from WP:IS WP:RS addressing the subject directly and indepth. BLPs require strong sourcing. Ping me if
WP:THREE sources are posted. //
Timothy ::
talk 20:21, 27 January 2024 (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.