Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen A. Chang

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. – Joe (talk) 07:09, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen A. Chang[edit]

Stephen A. Chang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Was deleted through prod, and then recreated. Working actor, but with no real significant roles, fails WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 TT me 01:00, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 01:00, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:13, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 03:05, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's very hard to say where the article fits here. On one hand, the actor had appeared only in three feature films, and even that was more like a cameo or supporting role. On the other hand, he voiced a video game, and many actors don't have time to do that. My feeling is that if we will delete it - somebody will recreate it, sooner or later.--Filmomusico (talk) 03:44, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle (talkcontribs) 20:40, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and WP:SALT. Fails WP:NACTOR. KidAdSPEAK 21:33, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Waddles. Oppose bad faith call to salt the article without any compelling evidence to support the assertion. Haleth (talk) 09:58, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I am not seeing a good policy based rationale from the keep voters. With only one significant role to speak of, he clearly fails WP:NACTOR. Further, there is no in depth significant coverage in independent sources. The article substantially relies on interviews in gamer blogs and ezines. However, interviews have historically been discredited as RS at AFD towards SIGCOV because they essentially lack independence. Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 16:38, 8 September 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.