Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Evans Behling


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Mdaniels5757 (talk) 21:20, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Michael Evans Behling

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:GNG, could not find any significant coverage solely about the actor; all the coverage relates to the subject's work and related events, mere passing mentions. The only independent sources here is the interview, and that's primary. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 20:11, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 20:11, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 20:11, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 20:11, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 20:11, 23 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep Known actor starring on current network television series. Outside of a couple 'CW PR posted as news story on CW affiliate website' links, I find no issues with the plentiful for their WP:N sources given, considering they're a supporting actor on this series rather than a main lead.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 20:55, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:10, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:10, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:10, 23 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep There are a few fluffy cover refs in the article now as the two from The Republic. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:36, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete Weak Keep or Redirect or Draftify: It seems a little bit WP:TOOSOON; after all, the subject has only had one significant role in a notable production. His notability profile does seem to be rising, however, so I wouldn't be averse to "draftifying" the article, if the consensus is to "delete". There are some sources out there which provide more than mere mentions, including a Deadline Hollywood article, and they put the subject on the verge of WP:GNG, in my opinion. I would point out, though, that I disagree with the implication by the nominator that the sources have to be solely about the subject in order to meet the notability standards. Another solution would be to "redirect" the article to All American (TV series) (again, provided that the consensus tends towards a "delete"). Dflaw4 (talk) 01:19, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Update: I have upgraded my vote to a "Weak Keep" because I just realised that WP:NACTOR wasn't brought up by the nominator as a contentious issue. The only issue brought up is that of sourcing, and I don't think that that is too big a problem. In addition, editors are actively improving the article. In the unlikely event that this AfD is closed as a "Delete", I still maintain that "Draftifying" or "Redirecting" is appropriate. Dflaw4 (talk) 03:32, 29 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep as passes WP:BASIC with multiple reliable sources coverage such as The Republic, CW Atlanta, Decider, People Magazine, and others all in the article, so although it is early in his career he is notable and should be included in my view, Atlantic306 (talk)
 * Keep seems to pass WP:BASIC, although his notability is still rising. If it is deleted, I agree that it should be saved as a draft. Mukedits (talk) 18:48, 30 March 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.