Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Johnston (Canadian actor)

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. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 14:06, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Johnston (Canadian actor)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

A non notable actor. Seems to have only done minor roles, with no evidence of substantial secondary sources. Inappropriately sourced just by IMDb for several years. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:46, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:46, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:46, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:46, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:46, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. According to IMDb, all three of the films named in this article are ones in which he played minor supporting characters — in not a single one of them does his name appear above IMDb's "See full cast" cutoff, in one his character doesn't even have a name and in the other two his character was not significant enough to even be mentioned in our article about the films. These are clearly not "significant" roles for the purposes of NACTOR #1 — and even if they were, NACTOR still requires reliable source coverage about the actor and his performances before it actually gets passed, which is entirely absent. Bearcat (talk) 01:49, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even close to being a notable actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:30, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: It's astonishing (to me, anyway) that an actor with so many credits under his belt would struggle to meet the notability criteria. I am basing my vote on a very, very weak case for WP:NACTOR as well as some sources that I have found at newspapers.com. I have applied for them to be clipped at WP:RX and am not sure if they are relevant or helpful, but will post them here as soon as I get them. I will then update my vote accordingly. Dflaw4 (talk) 04:12, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Here are the articles; I presume they all refer to this Andrew Johnston, but I can't be sure: here, here and here. Dflaw4 (talk) 13:46, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To even consider keeping him we need to actually put the articles as sources on the page. Also, we need to know for sure they all refer to the same person.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:25, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, none of those clippings are bolstering the case much; most importantly, as noted by John Pack Lambert, there's no actual verification present that those three clippings are even all referring to the same person — neither "Andrew" nor "Johnston" are rare enough names that we can simply assume that any source that mentions an actor named Andrew Johnston is guaranteed to be referring to this Andrew Johnston, so we would need sources that more clearly establish that they're talking about the same person. Secondly, even if we accepted that they are the same person, NACTOR still isn't just looking for verification that roles were had — we need sources that are strongly enough about him and his performances to verify that the roles were significant in some way, not just sources that mention his name in passing. Bearcat (talk) 21:13, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I share your concerns, John Pack Lambert and Bearcat. The photo in one of the articles does match his photos on IMDb, however, so that's a start, and I refined my searches to Canadian actors as well. Further verification is still strongly preferred, though. I'll stand by my "Weak Keep" vote at the moment, and will wait and see what other editors have to say. I can provide more sources, too, but the same verification issues will likely arise. And, John, if the article were to be kept, I would certainly add the sources. Dflaw4 (talk) 04:50, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:32, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 09:38, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Kudos to Dflaw4 for their work in trying to find sources, but for me if we're struggling to confirm that the only sources we can find are actually about the subject of the article, that subject is probably not sufficiently notable for an article. I'm not comfortable with keeping a BLP based on an IMDB entry and a few press clippings that are probably, but not definitely, about the same person. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:10, 27 April 2020 (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.