Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fred Meijer

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. T. Canens (talk) 20:12, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Meijer[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:N. This was a PROD that I declined as an editor had contested it at a talk page, and had also attempted to contest it with an hangon template. Unsourced BLP, there are sources which can likely verifiably note his name as a voice actor in credits, but absolutely nothing I could find that would provide any sort of significant coverage in reliable sources to argue for notability under the WP:GNG. Reason given for the original PROD was "non-notable person.". Reason given on the Talk page for contesting the PROD was "In what way is a TV actor watched or listened to by MILLIONS not notable?". The policy question, to me, seems to be a question of whether voice actors like this have inherent notability that overrides the general notability guideline. j⚛e decker ^{talk to me} 18:58, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - My inclination would be to let this one stand given its stub status and the fairly broad number of roles cited. Television performers do indeed have something that approaches inherent notability in the view of many at these AfD debates. If this person did his work in English, I doubt there would have been a notability challenge launched. Admittedly this is not a really strong argument for inclusion; it's a close enough call that I'd advocate turning the other cheek, however. Carrite (talk) 07:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article needs expansion and improvement but that's what editors are for :-) Paul Beardsell (talk) 07:35, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In what way does that relate to the rationale for deletion? --j⚛e decker ^{talk to me} 18:09, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Some of concerned personality's works are notable. Bill william compton (talk) 13:41, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:12, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: unable to find significant coverage in any reliable sources independent of the subject of this unsourced BLP. J04n(talk page) 20:04, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet notability guidelines per WP:ARTIST. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:59, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there's no sourcing in this, please anyone voting keep at least add a bare url reference to the article! i looked and didn't have any luck finding something decent.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 13:39, 11 February 2011 (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.