Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Kaiser (entertainer) (3rd nomination)

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. Kurykh (talk) 00:17, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Kaiser (entertainer)[edit]

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

Last AFD immediately withdrawn as "I'd already tried this last year", but that doesn't seem to be enough. The sourcing appears to be a Canadian equivalent of IMDb, the filmography is scant, and otherwise no sources seem to exist. First AFD turned up some sources, but they only appear to be passing mentions at best. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:08, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, I first nominated this in September 2016, and it was kept on the grounds that "plenty of good sources exist" — albeit without much evidence shown of where particularly strong sources existed, because all that was shown in the debate was a photograph of the subject in drag not accompanied by an actual article, and three glancing namechecks of his existence in articles that weren't about him to any substantive degree. I had forgotten about the initial discussion, so I nominated it again when came across the article again yesterday, and only realized I'd nominated it before when the page turned out to be a "2nd nomination" and I clicked on the first one to review it. I wasn't prepared to stick my neck out on it again so soon, because that can look like "actively trying to ignore consensus" rather than the good faith accident that it really was, so I withdrew it — but I have no objection to the fact that TenPoundHammer decided to reinitiate it, and I do still believe that it's a delete.
What I'm still not seeing here is a strong claim to notability or any strong sourcing to support a WP:GNG claim — the sources shown in the first discussion aren't strong ones, for the reasons I addressed in my first paragraph above, and I can't find anything better. There's just no real substance here, either — the acting roles are all guest bit parts, not significant roles for the purposes of clearing WP:NACTOR, and even the Queen Elizabeth II Golden Jubilee Medal is not in and of itself a notability-conferring award. It was presented to 46,000 Canadians in 2002 to honour their records of volunteerism and community involvement, so while an awardee might be able to clear an inclusion test on the notability and sourceability of whatever work they did to earn the medal, the medal itself does not confer an automatic inclusion freebie on all 46,000 of them in the absence of proper sourcing for the notability of their work. And the only source present in the article is an IMDb-style database which, like IMDb itself, does not confer an automatic Wikipedia notability pass just because a database profile exists — and, for added bonus, that profile is a dead link.
We don't keep articles about local notables just because their existence can be sourced to photographs and glancing namechecks of their existence in coverage of other things — for a figure of purely local notability to clear the bar, there has to be a lot more substance and a lot better sourcing than is available here. Bearcat (talk) 17:06, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:07, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks the depth of coverage needed for notability. My searches found little beyond the sources identified in the 1st Afd nomination. Of those four none are significant coverage of Kaiser. They are a photo, non-independent comments by the subject about his mother, name mention in article about an award, brief quotes of the subject in an article regarding nightclub shootings. Happy to reconsider if better sources are located. Gab4gab (talk) 17:42, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:05, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG In ictu oculi (talk) 23:03, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Searches did not turn up anything to show they come close to passing WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:03, 14 March 2017 (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.