Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Purdham

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2020 April 17.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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. Salvageable or not, at this time this is a WP:BLP that cites only IMDB and no reliable sources. Deletion is therefore mandatory. The article can be recreated if better sources are cited. Sandstein 08:30, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

David Purdham[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)

Non notable actor. Sourced inappropriately with just IMDB for more than a decade. No evidence of secondary sources to help improve the article. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:29, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:29, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:29, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:29, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sourcing like this should not be enough to keep an article 13 hours let alone 13 years.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:10, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I think this page is salvageable. The subject is a prolific character actor with numerous recurring roles in notable TV shows, as well as main roles in various theatre productions, to which the following sources attest: here, here, here, here, and here. The first source seems to be a review of an audiobook; however, it also mentions the subject's role in a TV series. The other sources are all reviews of plays, which provide short bursts of coverage and praise. There are many more such articles, the cumulative effect of which meets WP:GNG, in my opinion, and I think WP:NACTOR is made out too. Dflaw4 (talk) 03:07, 15 April 2020 (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.