Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Tait (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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:46, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Tait (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)

WP:BLP of an actor, not reliably sourced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NACTOR. The role he's "known" for in the introduction was a supporting character so minor that he doesn't even get named in our article about the film at all (and we have a loooooooong article about that film), and is "sourced" only to Tait's IMDb profile rather than any reliable source coverage about it -- while the only other source here is a casting announcement for a future series, which namechecks Tait's existence amid a list of 20 actors cast in parts in that series without saying anything else about him as an individual (or even really clarifying whether Tait was cast in a major leading role or a minor supporting one), and thus isn't enough "coverage" to get him over the bar all by itself.
As always, actors don't automatically pass NACTOR #1 just because the article has a list of roles in it -- reliable sources have to be shown to demonstrate that the role was "significant" enough to pass that criterion, such as by singling out his performance for dedicated attention (as opposed to just glancingly namechecking that he was there) and/or showing that he won or was nominated for a major acting award for one or more of them.
Obviously no prejudice against recreation in the future if and when he has a stronger notability claim and better sourcing to support it, but actors are not "inherently" notable just because they exist, and have to show more than just cursory verification that they've had acting roles. Bearcat (talk) 14:27, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:27, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I know "Lord of the Rings" enough to know if your top role was Shagrat you are not notable. That he has some role in an upcoming TV series is not yet sign that he will be notable. If it is anywhere near the level of Shagrat he will remain non-notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:21, 23 May 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.