Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Kinney

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:25, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Kinney[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 with no sources other than IMDB. Deprodded but no additional sources have been added. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 08:53, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 08:53, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 08:53, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 08:53, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly fails the notability guidelines for actors. A bunch of guest appearances in television do not fit the definition of significant roles in major productions. The article itself admits his one recurring role was minor, so not significant. He is not notable. It is having such articles on minor figures that has nearly propelled us to 1 million articles on living people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:04, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The acting roles here are minor ones, not "significant" ones, for the purposes of WP:NACTOR #1 — and even if they were more significant than they are, merely adding a list of roles to an actor's BLP is not in and of itself an exemption from having to reliably source them: even the one show stated here that might genuinely bolster his case for inclusion, Inquiring Minds, is still not so "inherently" notable as to exempt him from having to have some real sources. But even on a ProQuest search, apart from a few glancing namechecks of his existence all I can find is accidental hits on people who are either definitely not, or at least not verifiable as, the same person as this. Bearcat (talk) 21:06, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: I'm voting "Weak Keep" for the moment on the basis of a weak case for WP:NACTOR—supporting roles in Small Crimes and The Story of Luke, as well as a long-running but minor recurring role in Degrassi: The Next Generation and Degrassi: Next Class. However, I fully agree that sourcing is a problem. Thus far, I haven't found much more than mere mentions, and if neither I nor anybody else is able to come up with anything more substantial, I will likely downgrade my vote. Dflaw4 (talk) 09:50, 19 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.