Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danso Gordon

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. ✗plicit 11:51, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Danso Gordon[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)

Actor has been working a long time, but his CV is a just a long litany of bit parts. Cannot find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources, either those in the article or elsewhere online - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 10:00, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 12:47, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As always, the notability test for actors is not just "a list of roles is present" — the article has to be supported by reliable sources that establish the significance of at least some of his performances, such as by verifying that he won or was nominated for major acting awards (Oscar, Emmy, Canadian Screen Award, etc.) or by analyzing the roles in enough depth to count toward WP:GNG (as opposed to just glancingly namechecking his existence in a cast list). But the only footnote here just tangentially verifies that the character he played in a TV movie was based on a real person by verifying the existence of that person while failing to say anything whatsoever about Danso Gordon's portrayal of him, which is not what it takes. And even on a ProQuest search for older sourcing that might not have Googled, I just can't find anything better. Bearcat (talk) 14:01, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete On form this is rubbish, we need something more than just a listing of roles. The sourcing is rubbish to, IMDb is not reliable and the subjects own website is plain out. I am not even figuring out how the article about a crime fits in, but pretty much all articles on crimes are not useble in any way to add towards GNG because of not news and routine concerns. There is a certain type of coverage of crime that rises above that, but the one source here does not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:15, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I figured out how the crime fits in, and this is a case of coatracking that has no relevance to Gordon. As best I can tell the link is to a news report related to a killing, and the new report pre-dates the work on the killing that Gordon performed in by 2 years. I would be shocked if that source even names Gordon, but if it does it would be a passing mention, it in no way adds to Gordon's notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:17, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Inadequate sourcing to meet notability for WP: GNG. IMDB is unreliable and not independent, same as the personal website. Seems a bit like a resume. NiklausGerard (talk) 06:21, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources present are not reliable, fails WP:GNG. TimothyStellar (talk) 09:10, 13 April 2022 (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.