Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Tayback

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. consensus after relisting DGG ( talk ) 22:14, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Tayback[edit]

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

Doubtful notability. Struggling to find enough independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 21:17, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:57, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:57, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:57, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Really very little reliable source material to be found on this fellow, other than brief mentions as a cast member on a handful of films of dubious notability.PohranicniStraze (talk) 05:33, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:33, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:32, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very limited coverage and what's available is entirely local--I'm personally in favor of local sources counting toward notability, but hometown coverage alone does not suffice to satisfy WP:WHYN's requirement for a breadth of sources sufficient to create a balanced portrayal. Innisfree987 (talk) 15:52, 16 September 2017 (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.