Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gavin Warren


 * 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 keep. Spartaz Humbug! 21:34, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Gavin Warren

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

non-notable child actor, the majority of the roles are unnamed or brief appearances lasting less than 3 minutes and there is no significant coverage. Perhaps too soon but the sourcing for a 12 year old child blp needs to be rock solid and they simply aren't here. Praxidicae (talk) 14:33, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep The subject mentioned above is a notable child actor. The article has met the requirements stated in WP:ENT. The article should not be deleted since the subject is yet to make more contributions hence the article can be expanded in the coming years. Thats my opinion. December200 (talk) 15:25, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * "Yet to make more contributions" is irrelevant, if he becomes notable, there will be an article, but we're not here to predict the future. Also what sources support your assertion of GNG? Praxidicae (talk) 15:29, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 17:45, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete the roles to date do not meet notability requirements.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:35, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete or Draftify: The subject is getting coverage—for example, the Houston Chronicle article—but he may fall shy of WP:NACTOR, with only two roles, to date, that might pass the first criterion. Given his young age, I tend to agree with the nominator; however, since he has soon-to-be-released projects, I'd have no problem with the article being moved to "draftspace". Dflaw4 (talk) 02:02, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Java Hurricane  09:22, 29 May 2020 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   17:48, 5 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep- The fact that you said the roles are under 3 minutes is an assumption and not a fact and last time I checked the Houston Chronicle is notable and even has its own Wiki page. So yes that does count of press coverage.Thoroughbredwinner (talk) 05:20, 6 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Also it could be moved to the draft space to see if these "lead roles" are legitimate.Thoroughbredwinner (talk) 05:22, 6 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep, clearly notable and a GNG pass. Please take a look at the filmography and the many notable films in which he has appeared. He's been in Back Roads, First Man, 12 Mighty Orphans, and A Hard Problem, and many other noteworthy films and series, and will be appearing in many more notable films. Regards, Septuagintus070 (talk) 01:37, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

KeepJust did some research and found out that he is also featured in latimes and the Sanfransico chronicle (Added a couple links). Two notable sources. So, this settles whether he is notable or not. Also he gave Ryan Gosling a run for his money at the red carpet. He is notable enough to pass the GNG guidelines being he has reliable sources and press coverage.YoungPicasso777 (talk) 14:32, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

https://www.sfchronicle.com/life/celebrities/article/Ryan-Gosling-s-biggest-red-carpet-competition-13329219.php refers to him as a costar not an extra or just an appearance. YoungPicasso777 (talk) 16:27, 7 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep After reading the cited articles, I think the subject meets all the requirements for WP:NACTOR. He has multiple appearances in notable films where he has a significant roles. Three of the films he has had a role in have their own Wikipedia articles, meaning that they are notable. I haven't watched those films myself, but given that his roles are discussed in the cited articles, I would say that they are significant. It's clear that the article meets GNG. There are 13 cited sources, and although all of them are certainly not reliable, at least 5 are from reliable publications (LA Times, Houston Chronicle, local news). So, the article also meets verifiabilty. However, there is information in the article that isn't mentioned in the sources and isn't verifiable. I find it much more appropriate to remove the unverified information from the article than to delete it entirely. Specifically, the Personal Life section can be removed, along with some of the info in the Career section. I would also suggest removing the unreliable sources, such as the subject's personal webpage, and to remove irrelevant links in the Further Reading section. Maxwell.obscure (talk) June 29, 2024
 * Keep sufficient RS cover him to measure up to our inclusion criteria. Geo Swan (talk) 05:03, 12 June 2020 (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.