Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul E. Burns

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 think there's enough consensus that the article at least shows a bit of notability. (non-admin closure) buff bills 7701 01:50, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paul E. Burns[edit]

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

An actor with a lengthy career of bit parts doesn't seem to be sufficiently notable for WP:NACTOR ColonelHenry (talk) 02:30, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I recognize that this article could certainly do with improvement. However he does have over 250 entries on IMDB, even if they are mostly in bit parts, there were 9 red links even before this article was created, including the WikiProject articles wanted, and he did have a significant part in Son of Paleface, a fairly well known film. PatGallacher (talk) 02:35, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Way too many uncredited parts. Son of Paleface seems to have been his peak, and I might consider this a semi-"major" role in a semi-notable film, but where are the others? Lots of quantity, but not much quality, as far as I can see. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:35, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't like red links, and Paul Burns accounted for seven. Wikfr (talk) 22:35, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - the sheer number of films he was in indicates some kind of odd notability. I'd like some more sources. Bearian (talk) 22:30, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:14, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per IAR. I'm serious. There don't seem to be any sources beyond the one used in the article, but he's mentioned in cast lists over and over and over again. People will look him up, so we should have this article. I can't exactly articulate why... just, keep.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:32, 13 February 2014 (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.