Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charlie Mills (the hon)


 * 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) 01:05, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Charlie Mills (the hon)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR: No significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject also no evidence to support if the actor has played a major role in any of the film listed in the article. GSS (talk |c|em ) 12:02, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS  (talk |c|em ) 12:03, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. GSS  (talk |c|em ) 12:03, 7 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. Page expresses accurate information collected through magazine interviews, common knowledge, and information made avaliable online. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bizzinsider (talk • contribs) 16:07, 7 March 2017 (UTC)  — Bizzinsider (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * I've reformatted this comment to remove the header, and to bold the "Keep". The header broke the AFD log and at least one bot. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 16:17, 7 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete (or even speedy delete) – subject, now at the correctly disambiguated Charlie Mills (actor), is a complete and utter WP:NACTOR fail: just two roles in two short films, one of which hasn't been released yet. I would be tempted to say WP:TOOSOON except there's nothing here to indicate that the subject will ever achieve notability! Subject is so low profile that I actually think it probably should have been WP:CSD'ed under WP:A7 rather than AfD'ed... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:39, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep I feel the subjects extensive modelling career and fanbase on social media are enough to warrant this article. The article has been extended, without sources, but majority is factual, relevent. No reason to delete as above user suggests. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lordeych (talk • contribs) 22:53, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Then where are the WP:RS sources indicating this "extensive modelling career"?! No sources = no proof of notability. (And if truly primarily known as a model, the article should be moved to Charlie Mills (model)...) Also, a "fanbase on social media" is irrelevant unless noted as such in reliable independent secondary sources. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:34, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:37, 7 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete minor roles at this level are not enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:00, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Per nom and per IJBall--178.222.144.4 (talk) 09:09, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep please refer to first source, mention of birth date and fanbase. Bizzinsider (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:40, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment You already voted--178.222.144.4 (talk) 13:46, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * FamousBirthdays.com is WP:NOTRS (see this). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:11, 8 March 2017 (UTC)


 * 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.