Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Costello (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. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:41, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Costello (actor)[edit]

[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)

Non notable actor, only using IMDB as an unreliable source. No evidence of independent secondary sources. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 10:51, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 10:51, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 10:51, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 10:51, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 10:51, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 10:51, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 10:51, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. I could not find evidence of significant coverage either. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 11:33, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete way too many one episode appearances in TV. It is time that Wikipedia stop being an IMDb mirror.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:52, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Many bit parts, but no substantive coverage to support a WP:BLP. --Kinu ^t/_c 02:40, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Weak Keep: I'm voting "Keep" on the basis of several newspaper.com hits which may well amount to WP:SIGCOV. I have applied at WP:RX to have them clipped and will provide them here as soon as possible. Dflaw4 (talk) 02:03, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Here are the articles: here, here, here, here, here, and here. I think they meet WP:SIGCOV. Dflaw4 (talk) 13:28, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All of those hits are from the Austin American-Statesman; according to the coverage in the first article, Austin is the subject's hometown. This is a double failure of significant coverage: first, per the GNG, Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability, and second, it fails WP:AUD as all the publications are local to the subject and therefore do not indicate significant attention by the world at large, as required by WP:N. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:06, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, PMC, I didn't realise that. I will downgrade my vote to a "Weak Keep" accordingly. Dflaw4 (talk) 05:01, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Following PMC's comments, I am downgrading my vote. Dflaw4 (talk) 05:01, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per my comment above. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:06, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @PMC: WP:AUD only applies to companies and organisations, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:14, 13 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.