Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Abbott Jr.


 * 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. Kurykh (talk) 03:28, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Michael Abbott Jr.

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable actor. Was not able to find RS about him, only about films that he acted in. Natg 19 (talk) 01:03, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 01:03, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 01:04, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete, or Redirect to In the Radiant City – there is not enough here to demonstrate that the subject passes WP:NACTOR. Of the two bona fide WP:RS cited, The New York Times source is only a passing mention. That leave the Variety source which is a legitimate source to help establish notability, and would seem to indicate that In the Radiant City is a "significant" role for him. But that's one role, and WP:NACTOR demands multiple significant roles. Redirecting to In the Radiant City might be the best call here. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:28, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 20:46, 7 February 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Further comments should indicate whether delete or redirect is the better course of action.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 03:53, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete When the article stoops to mentioning a minor, uncredited role in a film that it makes a point to call award winning it is way to over promotional and just needs to be deleted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:23, 20 February 2017 (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.