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. TonyBallioni ( talk) 16:05, 10 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Tom Nowicki

Tom Nowicki (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

Fails GNG and NACTOR. Unresolved notability tag for last seven years. Chetsford ( talk) 03:26, 27 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Every Morning (there's a halo...) 04:17, 27 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Every Morning (there's a halo...) 04:17, 27 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Every Morning (there's a halo...) 04:18, 27 January 2018 (UTC) reply

• Weak keep. Appears to have had significant roles, and some coverage found here. -- Michig ( talk) 08:25, 27 January 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete - no reliable sources are provided to support notability.-- Rpclod ( talk) 14:25, 3 February 2018 (UTC) reply
• Weak delete - I'm a bit torn on this one, as Mr. Nowicki has more than 140 acting credits according to IMDB, but most are small parts or "guest appearances". However, I have to agree with Rpclod that the lack of reliably-sourced references means that the article should be deleted. PK T(alk) 13:54, 5 February 2018 (UTC) reply

CommentI have issues with the idea that the number of roles should be important. I suggest it is the type or roles played and not the number. Jimmy Dean was a very small number of movies before died but he has had a tremendous impact to this day. And while I haven’t done my homework on this actor, my point is a universal one: if it turns out that, say, 100 of his roles are listed in the credits as Man in the green coat or Irritable dad at the Little League game, then sure he’s making a living but it doesn’t make him wiki worthy. MensanDeltiologist ( talk) 03:28, 8 February 2018 (UTC) reply

• Comment: In addition to the Orlando Sentinel article that Michig highlighted, there is also this. But beyond these two, I cannot find any significant coverage. Erik ( talk |  contrib) ^{( ping me)} 17:11, 6 February 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep has enough prominent roles amongst his 140 screen credits to pass criteria 1 of WP:NACTOR and also passes criteria 3 having made prolific contributions to his field of entertainment. There is some rs such as Orlando Sentinel and above but more would help. Atlantic306 ( talk) 17:30, 6 February 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete, without prejudice against recreation if somebody can do better than this. The mere having of roles is not an automatic inclusion freebie that exempts an actor from having to be properly referenced as the subject of enough reliable source coverage to support an article — the notability claim is not "has had roles", but "has received enough RS coverage to clear GNG for the having of roles". But if all we can actually find for reliable source coverage is one article in his local newspaper and one article in a local interest magazine in the same area, then that's simply not enough RS yet. GNG is not just "can show two local sources" — the list of people we would have to keep articles about if two local sources were all it took to clear GNG includes everybody who was ever fire or police chief or chair of the library board of anywhere, everybody who was ever mayor of anywhere, every non-winning candidate for any political office, every local radio DJ, unsigned bands who don't clear NMUSIC and haven't even recorded an album yet, high school athletes, aspiring local actors who haven't cleared NACTOR yet, aspiring local writers who haven't cleared AUTHOR yet, and my mother's neighbour who found a pig in her yard a few years ago. So even a simple GNG pass requires more than "two pieces of local coverage in the topic's own hometown local media exist", because lots of people of no wider encyclopedic interest could show enough local coverage to "clear" GNG if two pieces of hometown coverage were all it took. Bearcat ( talk) 18:51, 7 February 2018 (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.