Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Todd Doldersum (2nd nomination)

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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 17:32, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Todd Doldersum

AfDs for this article:

[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)

I couldn't find evidence that he meets WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. Minor coverage, mainly in unreliable sources or promotional material. Last AfD closed as no consensus, very little participation. Boleyn (talk) 17:18, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:25, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Still nothing found, he's done a few Canadian dubs for cartoons, but nothing we can use for GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 19:20, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NACTOR is not automatically passed just because acting roles have been had — every actor has had acting roles by definition, because that's literally the job description, so if just having roles guaranteed automatic inclusion in Wikipedia regardless of sourceability, then every actor would automatically get that pass and NACTOR itself would be meaningless. Rather, the notability test for an actor hinges on the amount of reliable sourcing that can or cannot be provided to demonstrate that his acting roles have made him a subject of third-party attention — but the references here are a press release from the studio that made a show he was in (a primary source that is not support for notability at all) and a newspaper article that just glancingly namechecks his existence in a photo caption while not saying even one word about him in the body text, and the only other thing I can find on a WP:BEFORE search is a human interest piece in the context of his wedding rather than the context of anything relevant to passing our notability criteria for actors or puppeteers. That's not sufficient. Bearcat (talk) 14:38, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:48, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UTC)

Delete I believe it fails WP:NACTOR. Equine-man (talk) 08:48, 9 January 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.