Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Kronenberg


 * 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 Speedy Delete per G5 by NuclearWarfare. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

David Kronenberg

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Article about a child actor with only minor roles and no evidence of coverage in reliable sources. RL0919 (talk) 01:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 01:38, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not to be confused with David Cronenberg. This one seems unnotable. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 02:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - I think he passes the test. He's been in a few feature films. I fixed the imdb link, by the way. - Richard Cavell (talk) 03:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no doubt that he has appeared in notable productions, but none of these were "significant roles" (as per WP:ENT), and there seems to be no third-party coverage of him or his roles in reliable sources. (There are articles that mention "David Kronenberg", but these are other people, often misspellings of the name of the director David Cronenberg.) --RL0919 (talk) 17:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete roles appear to be only very minor bit parts... claiming that appearing as a baby in One Night At McCool's was a "main role" is silly bordering on downright false. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  19:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. The article has been speedy deleted by for reasons unrelated to this AFD (it was created by a banned user), so it seems the discussion is moot. --RL0919 (talk) 21:14, 17 January 2010 (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.