Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lee Paul


 * 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. Keep, albeit borderline no consensus. Either way, there isn't a consensus to delete the materials. Star  Mississippi  02:56, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Lee Paul

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Fails WP:NACTOR. Just a journeyman with no breakthrough roles. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:28, 19 April 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  06:49, 26 April 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  12:40, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete: WP:ROTM actor, decent enough, but fails WP:NACTOR 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 06:52, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Television,  and New York.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:20, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete lacks any actual significant roles to meet our inclusion guidelines for actors. Not everyone with a credited role in a commerical film is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:04, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Seems notable to me as he had a list of numerous (supporting or other kind) of roles in notable films and tv shows. MoviesandTelevisionFan (talk) 23:38, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.  This is a 1,246-word article about Lee Paul. The article notes: "Actor Lee Paul's career record reads: "Bad guys, 117; good guys, 3, with one of those in question." Predominantly "bad guy" Paul is something of a rarity among the 80,000 card-carrying actors and actresses in America today. ... With roles of various sorts in well over 100 television productions-primarily the heavy-the residuals show up regularly in the Paul mailbox. They range from an occasional hefty sum to a career low of $2.67. Thirty or more television commercials have added to Paul's credits, and income, including a "good guy" part in an inspirational commercial for the Mormon Church. ... At "5 feet, 17 1/2 inches," and 225 pounds, he is both tall and solidly built. Paul acknowledges that it hurts when he is passed over for a part simply because of his height, as has happened more than once. ... With an IQ of 165 and the initial sponsorship of an attorney, a retired Air Force officer who took an interest in him while he was in the Boy Scouts in Brooklyn, the young Paul Lee Kroll went off on a fully paid scholarship to Marietta College in Ohio. He was graduated at age 19 with a bachelor of science in petroleum studies, later changed to a fully accredited degree in engineering, and a lifelong bug to be an actor. ... Paul was drafted into the Army but, because of his engineering degree, he shifted to officer candidate school at Lackland AFB, Tex., where he earned the gold bar of an Air Force second lieutenant and assignment as a "weapons controller." ... Paul is married to Kathleen Kroll-she took his family name, king in Polish-a former Las Vegas dancer and front row principal."  The book notes: "Actor Paul Lee died on September 22, 2019. He was 80. Paul was born on June 16, 1939, and was raised in Brooklyn, New York. He attended college in Marietta, Ohio, and served in the U.S. Air Force. He began performing on stage and appeared in numerous touring productions. He appeared in films for the early 1970s, with roles in ..."  The article notes: "The Royal Ballet season opened at Covent Garden last night. Into the foyer swaggered a 6ft. 6in. cowboy from Texas, Mr. Paul Lee Kroll. ... He is a scoutmaster who has been in Sweden for Swedish-American Day. And another thing. Mr. Kroll is really a petroleum engineer from Brooklyn." There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Lee Paul to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 08:47, 9 May 2022 (UTC) 
 * Obituaries is a list of various performers, some notable, others not (e.g. Sheila Paterson on the preceding book page); his entry is little more than a list of credits. And what does Paul Lee Kroll, a petroleum engineer, have to do with Lee Paul? Clarityfiend (talk) 10:17, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Notability (people) says: "People are presumed if they have received significant coverage in  that are,  of each other, and .<ul><li>If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability." The combination of all the "multiple independent sources" I provided demonstrates that the subject passes Notability (people). The 1,246-word Los Angeles Times article calls the subject "Actor Lee Paul" and "young Paul Lee Kroll", states he received "a bachelor of science in petroleum studies", says he is "5 feet, 17 1/2 inches" (which is 6 feet 5 1/2 inches), and states he is from Brooklyn. The Evening Standard article calls him "Paul Lee Kroll", says he is "6ft. 6in.", and states he is "a petroleum engineer from Brooklyn". The two articles are about the same person. I don't think that the McFarland & Company-published Obituaries in the Performing Arts, 2019's coverage of non-notable performers detracts from its contributing to notability of Lee Paul under Notability (people) as one of the sources that is "combined to demonstrate notability". Cunard (talk) 09:54, 10 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep. I wasn't down with this until I read in the LA Times that Lee Paul and Paul Lee Kroll were one and the same. The article from the LA Times is definitely significant coverage. The article from the London newspaper  is definitely SIGCOV. The book mentions, etc. are icing on the cake. Jacona (talk) 12:42, 10 May 2022 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.