Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ulric Browne

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. Consensus is that the article has been improved since nomination such that notability is established through reliable sources. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:25, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ulric Browne[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 any of the three points on WP:NACTOR. Browne has portrayed the role of an extra in 103 episodes of EastEnders, and that's about it other than minor guest appearances. DarkGlow (talk) 15:21, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow (talk) 15:26, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. SharabSalam (talk) 15:56, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:35, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:45, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete: Somehow, having played a small part/extra in over 100 episodes of EastEnders almost seems notable in and of itself! I am inclined to agree with the nomination/nominator, however. Dflaw4 (talk) 08:50, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Browne speaking practically broke the internet in 2017. It might be some silly celeb news sites, but, he is indeed the longest serving extra on Britain's longest running show and he clearly has a cult following. Missvain (talk) 03:52, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Missvain's added sources. That looks like a cult following to me. -- Toughpigs (talk) 04:04, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Silly celeb news sites" are not RS. RobinCarmody (talk) 22:24, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Digital Spy, one of the "silly celeb news sites" used in the article, has been defended as a RS many times: 1, 2, 3 etc. -- Toughpigs (talk) 23:03, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - lots of RS including Metro, BBC 1Xtra, Irish News, Digital Spy, The Observer, these are not “silly celeb news sites”.Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:16, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For the record: I LOVE reading my silly celeb news sites! Missvain (talk) 17:43, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Missvain's expansion / improvement (although please do not cite The Sun in BLPs). [1] Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:53, 13 January 2020 (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.