Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gavin O'Connor (actor)

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. MBisanz ^talk 18:21, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gavin O'Connor (actor)[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)

Incredibly poorly referenced BLP; no significant coverage that I could find. Elli (talk | contribs) 03:48, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Elli (talk | contribs) 03:48, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:05, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:05, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:06, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This 48-year-old Irish actor has 131 acting credits listed on IMDb, starting in 1996. A 25-year acting career with numerous film and TV credits, including as a regular on various TV series should automatically indicate more than sufficient notability for a Wikipedia entry. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 09:38, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A quick WP:BEFORE search returned quite a few sources, several of which I have added to the article. While there were some tonal issues (also since addressed), that is not a reason to delete. AfD is not cleanup. Guliolopez (talk) 09:54, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment a poorly sourced article, in and of itself, is a ridiculous reason to nominate an article for deletion. Simply tag the article for improved sources. If they exist, someone will find them. The issue should be whether or not the subject is wiki worthy. ThurstonMitchell (talk) 12:46, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ThurstonMitchell it being poorly sourced was not the main reason I nominated it. I pointed that out as the existing sources weren't significant reliable coverage. Elli (talk | contribs) 16:14, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I feel you are trying to make distinction without a difference or whatever that saying is. No matter how you word it, you could tag it for expert attention. That’s just one example. Give it a reasonable amount of attention for people more knowledgeable than yourself who might have access to resources you don’t. And if after several weeks or months after tagging it for expert attention, it still doesn’t live up to your expectations, then nominate. Why rush to delete unless it is something like John Doe is the self proclaimed champion of eating the most saltines in five minutes before going on to whistle for ten minutes? That you rush to delete. ThurstonMitchell (talk) 17:00, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - The article was tagged as an unreferenced BLP for nearly a year. {{needs expert}} doesn't work and is currently nominated for deletion. Regardless, how long a tag lingers doesn't make an article more or less notable - which from what I saw in my research, this article wasn't. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:56, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A substantial (mid-level) career, and sufficient references to start, at least. The article certainly needs work but I think this was the wrong process. SeoR (talk) 21:11, 13 March 2021 (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.