Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Billy Redden

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 keep‎ . Randykitty (talk) 07:17, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Redden[edit]

[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)

While DigitalIceAge, who just undid my BLAR, makes a good point that there are at least a handful of articles covering this subject, I couldn't find anything that wasn't completely tying him back to his sole prominent role in Deliverance, hence why I went for the redirect initially. But since it's been disputed, of course I'm now bringing it here. My argument remains the same; one notable role as an actor should fall under WP:SINGLEEVENT, and I don't think the coverage does enough to pass that standard. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 05:46, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Georgia (U.S. state). QuietHere (talk | contributions) 05:46, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Found another lengthy article in Chicago Tribune regarding his role in Burton's Big Fish that has not been cited yet. Clearly a bit actor, but a very popular and identifiable one that IMO deserves a spot on the Wiki. Failing a keep, Redirect to Deliverance. DigitalIceAge (talk) 05:57, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep or Redirect, I appreciate the nom's position, though when there are articles significant enough that you could assert a degree of notability about the individual (like this from 2004), it may just scrape WP:BASIC. That said, he didn't really have a notable career and the single-event point is valid, so I think a redirect is entirely feasible if there is no clear consensus to retain the article. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:23, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:11, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 15:30, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 17:31, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - ONEEVENT is intended to be invoked for things like lottery winners who stumble into brief bursts of media coverage through no volition of their own. In this case we have an actor, the subject of multiple instances of coverage in reputable sources. The fact that he is known for only one role is neither here nor there; this is not a ONEEVENT situation but rather a (weak) GNG pass. Carrite (talk) 23:43, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems like there is sufficient coverage. For WP:BLP1E to apply, all three criteria need to be met, and this one would fail on the basis of him not being a low profile individual. Also, he's notable for more than one thing (two performances) which is what WP:NACTOR would need. CT55555(talk) 01:12, 22 April 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.