Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Niko Foster

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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:05, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Niko Foster

[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)

WP:BLP of an actor and film producer, not properly sourced as passing notability criteria for actors or film producers. As always, people are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and instead have to show external validation of significance such as notable awards and/or the reception of significant coverage and analysis about them and their work in third-party sources -- but this is referenced almost entirely to IMDb and/or other IMDb-equivalent directories, which are not reliable or notability-making sources at all, and the only citation that comes from a WP:GNG-worthy media outlet is just a film casting announcement that glancingly namechecks his existence without being about him in any non-trivial sense, which means it isn't enough to get him over GNG all by itself if it's the only GNG-worthy source in the mix.
Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have stronger referencing than this, and the article has been tagged for possible WP:UPE to boot. Bearcat (talk) 13:31, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 13:31, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:06, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Little to no coverage in independent reliable sources. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:56, 28 June 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.