Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carl Wharton

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Sourcing critiques from the Delete comments are very plausible, as spot-checking confirms many of the sources are passing mentions. The Keep commenters did not highlight any substantial coverage as rebuttal. RL0919 (talk) 10:24, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Wharton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NACTOR, lacks independent reliable sources. The Doom Patrol (talk) 09:18, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 18:17, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete no in-depth, significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources as TimothyBlue stated above. I'd like to see more than just the TVGuide source. The TVGuide source is a list of credits and roles, which is not in-depth, significant coverage. The other sources in the article are mere passing mentions and a WP:BEFORE search doesn't convince me that this subject passes GNG. Tails Wx 19:45, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes NACTOR: The person has had significant roles in multiple notable films. Flurrious (talk) 20:21, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. No additional work has been done on the article so if those advocating Delete have found existing sources don't merit GNG, editors arguing Keep would help their position by providing links to those sources they believe indicate SIGCOV.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:26, 15 October 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, Daniel (talk) 10:01, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: The article needs a clean-up, but he meets WP:NACTOR and is notable enough to have their own article.
TheBritinator (talk) 11:52, 23 October 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.