Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danny Dorosh


 * 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. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 18:37, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Danny Dorosh

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

He does not yet meet WP:GNG or WP:NACTORS, from what I can see. May well just be a case of WP:TOOSOON Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:55, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:01, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.  Ascii002 Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:30, 28 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. Lacks the coverage needed for WP:GNG and falls short of WP:NACTORS. Tchaliburton (talk) 01:35, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep. This article sat dormant for FOUR YEARS. The second I made an attempt to improve it by adding references, a deletionist jumped on it because of an automated notification. Subject is obviously notable and meets the standards for retention. Put another way, what harm comes from keeping the article? If there was a problem, why wasn't it identified FOUR YEARS AGO? And now that someone shows the least bit of interest in contributing, it is time to pull the plug? This kind of garbage is what really turns people off from contributing.131.137.245.206 (talk) 02:04, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - Per failure to meet WP:GNG, mainly WP:NACTOR. No independent sources exist to verify the notability of this person. Verifiable independent sources need to be published first (WP:TOOSOON).  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   02:16, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - Easily fails WP:NACTOR WP:GNG WP:RS - At best this is WP:TOOSOON. It is irrelevant how long the article was in the article namespace. If anything the dormant article indicates that people were not interested in it, and that the subject was not receiving coverage. --Jersey92 (talk) 02:41, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 07:28, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete: fails WP:NACTOR, failed to find independent reliable sources. BethNaught (talk) 15:10, 8 September 2014 (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.