Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam Chew Jr.

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. T. Canens (talk) 15:14, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Chew Jr.

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Delete: as non-notable actor. Quis separabit? 11:30, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:32, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:32, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~::Also, more importantly, just noticed that this is a SPEEDY DELETE as per G4 (see here). Thanks, Quis separabit? 14:18, 2 June 2016 (UTC)~~[reply]

Sorry nominator, but no. I looked at both versions, and as this newer article is different enough from that which was previously deleted, it does not qualify for a G4 speedy. It has other issues, but that is not one of them. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:02, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK: FAIR ENOUGH. Quis separabit? 17:41, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

in looking further

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

Comment: If his long career and many roles are properly verified, he may be seen as meeting WP:ENT even without being personally the sole topic of sources. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:08, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete instead for now at best because his list of works show nothing outstanding to suggest he had any longtime works and there's also nothing else convincing so it's unlikely there's anything to suggest the exact solidity this would need to be acceptable. SwisterTwister talk 07:49, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SwisterTwister: Do you believe WP:ENT should be itself deleted from guideline? Or that WP:IMPERFECT and WP:WIP should be deleted because they encourage work? Or do you feel that WP:GNGACTOR is not based upon existing guidelines? And how do you feel about articles being placed in draftspace where they might be improved? What is your opinion about WP:BEFORE? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 00:42, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 01:19, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack adequate sources to justify an article, and his roles really were never major.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:40, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep borderline, as has a lot of minor roles but he does have some prominent roles , at least one lead and a number of 4th and 5th billings so WP:NACTOR is passed More RS needed, will look..Have added some extra references to the article. Atlantic306 (talk) 19:50, 7 June 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) 06:21, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On the Fence: Character actor with mainly TV guest/bit parts (largest series role -- assuming IMDB is correct -- was eight Bionic Woman episodes), not much else in the way of meeting WP:NACTOR#1, and with no significant coverage of his acting found. What is out there (beside recent interview as an Oscars voter here and passing notice such as Variety's review of 40 Carats), is a little coverage in old Suzy Knickerbocker society pages before his move to Hollywood (eg wedding of the season), something in House and Garden, and some material relating to the transfer of his family's home to the National Trust. There's some level of notability, and no sane redirect/merge (including to Cliveden), so a very marginal WP:NPOINTS keep might be in order, on the presumption that some of his work (particularly Rattlers and Serial) would have RS coverage (possibly offline). ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 15:57, 14 June 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.