Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cal Rein

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. postdlf (talk) 21:24, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cal Rein[edit]

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

A request was sent to OTRS from an email address listed on Cal Rein's website requesting that the article be removed as "self promotion" and non-notable and referencing this edit request, which probably should have been filed as an AfD to begin with. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive769#Cal Rein is be relevant here, though since the request came through what appears to be an official email address, I thought a full AfD couldn't hurt. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 16:48, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is easy to spoof outgoing email addresses. Has anyone attempted to contact him to confirm it is him, not a stalker/impersonator? Marginal notability on the article at the moment, but keep if it isn't actually him wanting the deletion, delete if it is actually him. The-Pope (talk) 09:22, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, my default vote when a BLP subject of low, marginal, or unclear notability requests deletion of their own article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:59, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:29, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:29, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:29, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A bunch of minor credits, but no sizable roles in significant films or TV series means he fails WP:NACTOR. When the article talks about his casting in the not-in-general-release, low-budget The Eagle Path as "a turning point in his career", then you know he isn't notable yet. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:53, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 15:47, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No substantial sources, no basic notability; fails WP:ACTOR on a good day. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:08, 16 January 2013 (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.