Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Cade


 * 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 California Dreams.  MBisanz  talk 01:18, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Michael Cade

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Almost completely analogous to Articles for deletion/William James Jones (which was recently closed as "redirect") – subject is not independently notable under WP:GNG, and likely fails WP:NACTOR as well with only one "significant" role (in California Dreams). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:59, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:00, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:00, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Redirect to California Dreams also as this is simply not yet solidly convincing for the actors notability, none of this suggests a better separate article. SwisterTwister   talk  06:20, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep as there is a UK Daily Mirror article highlighted in highbeam, still looking for it, also found a Brazilian article but the website needs checking out Atlantic306 (talk) 05:37, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Again, you seem not to understand the meaning of "significant" coverage required by WP:GNG. William James Jones had an entire Chicago Tribune article devoted to him, but that alone wasn't enough to establish notability. Also, if you found a cite as you claim, why have you not added it to that article? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:40, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The evidence of the Daily Mirror article is in the highbeam results which mention it, when I can find it I'll add it. After investigating the Brazil website I think its a content farm so that excludes it. Regarding sig coverage the AFC advice for reviewers is that significant coverage from one source is at least one substantial paragraph, see here its in the box of section two  which is a lot less than a whole article, personally I had thought it had to be a bit more than a paragraph. Atlantic306 (talk) 00:20, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * One "substantial" article is not enough – WP:GNG demands more. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:39, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:02, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:38, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:45, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect to California Dreams, subject is not independently notable. Bishonen &#124; talk 15:07, 7 April 2016 (UTC).
 * Redirect to the California Dreams article. Not enough in-depth coverage to warrant a stand-alone article.  Onel 5969  TT me 13:22, 10 April 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.