Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Kaschalk

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:49, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Kaschalk

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

Doesn't meet WP:ENT or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 04:51, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: done some more BEFORE searching, and listed two passing mentions that fails NACTOR. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 15:16, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:54, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:40, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 21:50, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He's got some passing mentions and has been quoted in print[1][2][3] but I don't think that's enough to meet WP:GNG. His award wins were among a group of people, and you have to ask in such circumstances whether the notability attaches to every individual, to the team, or to the film. Mention the wins and the people in the article on the film, but I don't think anything else is quite justified. Unless there are more in-depth sources. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:58, 3 July 2017 (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.