Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Edney
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. JForget 00:30, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Paul Edney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Actor who fails WP:BIO, has not had a major role, just a list of minor appearances in varied shows. I can't find any evidence of notability through other coverage or awards. Strong COI. – Toon 21:53, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no coverage in reliable sources. His body of work consists of roles such as "Diner Patron". Notability for Wikipedia is not satisfied. -- Whpq (talk) 21:56, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete doesn't appear to meet any of the relevant notability standards. Bfigura (talk) 23:00, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Work as "background actor", often referred to as "extra", is generally insufficient to give rise to notability, and would require more significant evidence than an unsourced list of such credits. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:21, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete can't find significant coverage. LibStar (talk) 22:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - More or less an extra. Seems to be a very prolific extra, but an extra nonetheless. Fails WP:BIO, Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 19:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete - Blatant WP:NOTABILITY violation. I think there should be a new Criteria for Speedy Deletion on Notability as A10. December21st2012Freak Lord of the Vulcans 23:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A7 is perfectly fine. If there is a hint of notability, then it should go for further discussion. There is no need to rush headlong towards deletion. -- Whpq (talk) 00:29, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: given that the article has been created and deleted a couple of times, we need a consensus in the form of AfD discussion to prevent recreation. If it's speedied, then we'll just have to do this all over again. – Toon 12:28, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - given the COI and repeated recreation, if there is a consensus to delete (as seems likely), I'd ask the closing admin to consider adding a dash of salt. -- Bfigura (talk) 23:01, 7 November 2009 (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.