Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justin Landry


 * 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 redirect to SmartAsk. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 17:18, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Justin Landry

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

There's no inherited notability from anything listed not should we consider mistaking it as such, it's a fact he is actually onpy known for 1 TV series, and that series itself only lasted about 2 years, with the other listed works only being trivial 1-time characters. Hence WP:NOT also applies since Wikipedia is not IMDb, something thid current article is only fitting for. SwisterTwister  talk  01:25, 3 December 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete does not meet the notability requirements for actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:26, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep passes WP:GNG as has reliable source newspaper coverage such as Toronto Star and Town Crier, being on a television series for two years is not trivial. Atlantic306 (talk) 02:50, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Think there's enough to warrant keeping. Seems to have a number of roles and as noted above a two-year stint (if he was in it for all of that time) could in itself be considered 'notable' Eagleash (talk) 03:22, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:07, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:20, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:20, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete. The Town Crier is a community weekly newspaper that is neither widely distributed beyond its own neighbourhood nor archived anywhere that we could retrieve the content again if the weblink ever died, so it does not count toward passage of WP:GNG. It would be acceptable for supplementary sourcing of stray facts after GNG had already been satisfied by stronger sources, but it cannot count toward the initial question of whether GNG has been met in the first place. And the same issue pertains to Durhamregion.com. And I searched to find the Toronto Star article as well — it is not in fact about him, but merely namechecks his existence a single time in an article about something else, so it's not bringing any GNG either. And WP:NACTOR is not met just because roles are asserted, either: it's met when the roles are supported by sourcing that satisfies GNG — but none of the sourcing here satisfies GNG, so NACTOR is not passed. SNGs do not provide an exemption from having to source an article over GNG; they serve to clarify the types of things are accepted as notability claims if they're supported by GNG-passing sources, but the sourceability still has to pass GNG to actually get the article included, regardless of what it unsourcedly or bad-sourcedly claims. No prejudice against recreation in the future if and when somebody can source it better than this. Bearcat (talk) 21:04, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e talk 01:20, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect to SmartAsk There is no question that the CBC television show was notable and while this individual does have some coverage, I don't believe it's enough to warrant a standalone article. I think a compromise of arguments here is to redirect to SmartAsk. Mkdw talk 02:42, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect as suggested by . Right now, it is just too soon. He has a made-for-TV film coming out later this week. I cleaned up the outrageous puffery and crystal balling. Bearian (talk) 14:06, 28 December 2016 (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.