Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chriss Anglin


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 02:53, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Chriss Anglin

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable actor. Natg 19 (talk) 09:58, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 09:59, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 09:59, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep 66 screen credits, including some leading roles, passes notability guidelinesAtlantic306 (talk) 01:09, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete actually as IMDb shows his works not at all solidly satisfying WP:ENTERTAINER. SwisterTwister   talk  01:05, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:21, 14 March 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07  ( T ) 00:43, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - Please note that simply having a certain number of works and such are simply not enough for actually better satisfying WP:ENTERTAINER. With actuality, this article would need improvements and with no one taking the efforts and time, this is best deleted until better is available. SwisterTwister   talk  06:06, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment the number of credits does matter as per criteria3 of WP:ENT Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.A large number of credits could be considered prolific, looking for RS. Atlantic306 (talk) 20:22, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, couldn't find much at all except although don't have any advanced search engines, just the google.Atlantic306 (talk) 18:47, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - Don't agree with Atlantic306's assessment of the third criteria for WP:ENT. Using that definition, there are literally thousands of extras who would qualify for a Wikipedia page. I personally know probably over 100 people who have each been in over 100 films. None of them notable. The two best roles this person has is the Dead Men Walking credit, while the second is as Humpty Dumpty in a soft porn film (not a notable film). Other than that, his roles are simply not significant, or the films/videos/shorts are not notable. Therefore he does not pass WP:NACTOR or WP:ENT, nor is there enough in-depth coverage to show he passes WP:GNG. I will say his imdb bio is a perfect example of why that is not a reliable source.  Onel 5969  TT me 12:52, 31 March 2016 (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.