Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ry Armstrong (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 delete. Star Mississippi 01:36, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ry Armstrong (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)

Does not meet WP:NACTOR with two minor roles (both uncredited), a short, and one episode of a TV series. Currently the first and second references are interviews, and the third is a mention in one sentence. >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 20:39, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and United States of America. >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 20:39, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:GNG. Bothell Kenmore Reporter is quite in-depth with analysis, so meets all requirements of a secondary source [1]. Out Front is quite a notable LGBT magazine and their first four paragraphs analyze Ry's work – not an interview. As per my search, there is still more coverage available. Harry Balle (talk) 04:50, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete The ultra-local home town coverage (boy makes good) about is as close to non-rs as its possible to get. The guy is a bit part actor and has not spent than 20 minutes on screen. No career to speak of, no coverage, no social media. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NACTOR scope_creep^Talk 16:22, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 19:20, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: If there is "still more coverage available", now would be the time to mention it.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:59, 18 July 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.