Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conphidance (2nd nomination)


 * 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 no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 09:27, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Conphidance
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article recreated by a SPA editor after the result of the first AfD was "soft delete". Current sourcing is either from unreliable sources, press releases, or is simply mentions of him. Searches did not turn up the type of in-depth coverage of him to show he passes WP:GNG, and he certainly doesn't pass WP:NACTOR.  Onel 5969  TT me 12:37, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  Onel 5969  TT me 13:55, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  Onel 5969  TT me 13:56, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  Onel 5969  TT me 13:56, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions.  Onel 5969  TT me 13:56, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:14, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep - mentioned in reliable sources and has roles in prominent TV series. - Fuzheado &#124; Talk 03:51, 20 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment - but no "significant roles", as required to meet WP:NACTOR, and you just confirmed he doesn't meet WP:GNG.  Onel 5969  <i style="color:blue">TT me</i> 06:05, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover (U)(T)(C) 17:23, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete passing mentions and minor roles do not make someone notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:48, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep The Rolling Out article is not a passing mention and solely about this person and appears to be a WP:RS. Entertainment Weekly is certainly a RS and the creators of the significant TV series American Gods spend a full paragraph praising this actor.  Those are enough to pass over the WP:GNG bar. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:01, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I can't figure out if Rolling Out is a WP:RS or not. I can't find anything that talks about their editorial policy, who publishes it, anything like that.  -- RoySmith (talk) 17:12, 30 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. Responding to Fuzheado, we're not looking for mentions.  We're looking for in-depth significant coverage.  And a smattering of minor roles doesn't count for much.  For example, American Gods (TV series) lists a cast of 8 main roles and 17 recurring roles.  Conphidance plays Okoye, the 16th listed recurring role, and that role is not even mentioned in any of the episode summaries.  -- RoySmith (talk) 17:05, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Then you are using a standard that is not consistent with policy. See WP:GNG. It says "significant coverage" and not "in-depth coverage." Therefore your argument seems to be counter to this. -- Fuzheado &#124; Talk 19:03, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I've updated my comment, but that doesn't really change anything. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:25, 30 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep per Eggishorn, there seems to be enough source material out there to satisfy WP:GNG. – filelakeshoe (t / c) &#xF0F6;  08:35, 1 October 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.