Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Garry Roost


 * 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. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 16:49, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Garry Roost

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO and WP:NACTOR. I found this and this, but it hardly supports notability. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:24, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! Baby miss  fortune 02:04, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! Baby miss  fortune 02:04, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! Baby miss  fortune 02:04, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! Baby miss  fortune 02:05, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ! dave  09:12, 25 December 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Strong delete It is high time that every article sourced only to IMDb be removed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:26, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Poor sourcing in an article does not make a subject non-notable. His one-man stage shows have received quite a bit of coverage and his TV credits are easily verified. --Michig (talk) 09:33, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   10:28, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete: Per nom. This is a BLP with zero references. Consensus has determined that IMDb is not a reliable source and "External links" are not references. As a reminder, this is a BLP and as such is held to a higher degree concerning references. Four links were provided above, #1, #2, #3 are about "Pope Head" and #4 about the "one-man play". Three references are about the same thing and it is considered as one towards notability, so this is considered as being two references. The talk page shows the issues concerning a lack of were mentioned almost a year ago. and now there are two, and this is not enough to think about passing GNG. Otr500 (talk) 08:59, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * "Three references are about the same thing and it is considered as one towards notability" - seriously? --Michig (talk) 11:56, 7 January 2018 (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.