Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chance Perdomo

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. I do not believe that relisting this AfD means that I qualify as WP:INVOLVED since, extending it to NACs, an [editor] who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role ... is not involved. Thanks, (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 00:30, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chance Perdomo[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)

Delete: as insufficiently notable actor. Maybe just too soon. Quis separabit? 01:17, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:58, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:58, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:NACTOR with at least two prominent roles in notable productions, namely Chilling Adventures of Sabrina (TV series) in main cast listed fourth, and Killed by My Debt as the leading actor, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 19:38, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:34, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Definitely fails the WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. WP:TOOSOON applies. -- LACaliNYC ✉ 21:22, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Atlantic306's argument. WP:NACTOR would seem to be satisfied - There's been sufficient of the TV series for it to count - it doesn't have to have concluded before it qualifies. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:18, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 00:16, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Even split.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 00:28, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as passing WP:NACTOR, specifically per Atlantic306's points. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 08:09, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep At minimum a technical pass of WP:NACTOR (significant roles in two films that have WP articles; thus notable), but also has some other decent RS, and career is still on a strong upward trajectory, so would be a bit churlish to apply a WP:TOOSOON angle in my view. Britishfinance (talk) 21:13, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - two notable roles Spiderone 15:28, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Coverage in multiple other articles. Receives direct coverage, beyond mention, at https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/whats-on-tv-tuesday-may-29-8v528q0rf, https://deadline.com/2018/02/michelle-gomez-chance-perdomo-netflix-sabrina-the-teenage-witch-series-1202290637/ and https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2018/09/18/netflix-chilling-adventures-of-sabrina-lgbt-pansexual/ thus meets the WP:GNG. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:12, 22 February 2019 (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.