Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Alexander (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 no consensus. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 15:33, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Alexander (actor)

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

Non-notable actor. IMDB lists most of his appearances as uncredited appearances. Natg 19 (talk) 01:21, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 01:21, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 01:21, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as mentioned as there's nothing to suggest a better notable article. SwisterTwister talk 04:12, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:54, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:NACTOR for prominent roles in classic serials Buster Crabbe's Flash Gordon in 9episodes, Buster Crabbe's Flash Gordon's Trip to Mars in10 episodes, Zorro Rides Again in all episodes and S.O.S. Coast Guard all episodes. Most of his film roles have been bit parts except for some early westerns where he's had middle billing.Atlantic306 (talk) 22:20, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:39, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was going to close this as "no consensus" but I decided to conduct a WP:BEFORE search and it's very clear that among the many other Richard Alexander's out their such as the CEO or medical research doctor, Richard Alexander the actor has received very little significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. The thing about WP:NACTOR is that it's a guideline that essentially states, if an actor has had several prominent roles, it's likely there will be significant coverage about them to establish notability. Likely being the key word. There are going to be some actors that meet all the criteria and simply do not have significant coverage for GNG and this actor is one of them. Notability is not inherent and everything falls back to GNG. Mkdw ^talk 06:16, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I would immensely appreciate if this could be relisted a third time for better attention. SwisterTwister talk 06:53, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Doesn't hurt to attempt to get more consensus Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:26, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:26, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is one of those articles which is currently poorly sourced due to the lack of modern, on-line coverage available. He clearly passes WP:NACTOR, prominent roles include in films such as Young Donovan's Kid, Law and Order, Daring Danger, The Sign of the Cross (although a somewhat smaller role, definitely significant), Cleopatra, the Flash Gordon serial (as has already been mentioned), and SOS Coast Guard. While I don't have time at the moment, if you go into the magazines and trades of the time, such as The Film Daily, Motion Picture Daily, Motion Picture Herald, Variety, etc., he gets plenty of mentions, certainly enough to qualify for WP:BASIC, if not WP:GNG in its own right. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:46, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Onel5969: When you relisted the discussion for a rarely used third time, something expressly outlined to avoid at WP:RELIST, you affected the process of the discussion. Now that you've also !voted in the discussion, I think you should undo the relisting and let another editor review whether a third relisting is warranted. We relist discussions primarily to seek more consensus, so doing so a third time needs to be above and beyond that criteria. Mkdw ^talk 21:29, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Hi Mkdw - I will (I have no problem with it), but if I do it, will I mess something up with where it gets listed? If you know how to do it without messing up the listing, please feel free to do it, I certainly won't be offended. I've seen a few others with 3 relistings, which I thought was the limit. But I will remember that in the future. Please ping me back if you would prefer I revert the relisting, and it won't screw with what day it's listed on. Thanks for the heads up. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:11, 28 January 2016 (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.