Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Soltis

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) 02:08, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Soltis

[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)

Likely to fail WP:NACTOR and WP:CREATIVE KH-1 (talk) 02:17, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the sources demonstrate notability and he has multiple roles in various productions. The article could definitely use more sources though, and since his other career has won awards, this could be sourced more to strengthen the notability. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 06:04, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Artists, Canada, North Dakota, and Washington. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:27, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Are any of his roles actually significant? These are all just one or two episodes per show, usually credited as an extra or minor character like "Resistance Member" or "Uniform Cop". It's not that the article "could be sourced more to strengthen the notability", it needs to be sourced more to establish the notability, since none of the current sources are significant coverage. Reywas92^Talk 13:57, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The notability test for actors is not passed just because the article lists roles — having acting roles is literally an actor's job description, so if listing roles were all it took then every actor who exists at all would be inherently notable. Rather, the notability test is passed by showing reliable source coverage about him and his work in order to establish that they've been externally validated as significant, but that's entirely lacking here. Bearcat (talk) 16:47, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NACTOR. No evidence any of his acting roles have been significant. LibStar (talk) 03:46, 5 September 2023 (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.