Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Palance


 * 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   no consensus. Davewild (talk) 10:00, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Michael Palance

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article should not have been accepted through Articles for Creation, as does not meet notability threshold. Cannot find any significant coverage of Palance. As a courtesy to the creator, recommend draftifying (returning to Draft space) for further improvement. Primefac (talk) 15:21, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 7 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep or return to draft - subject is notable. I assume Primefac means he couldn't find an additional coverage, as the article already has one extensive RS story about Palance in the article.  Additional sources can be found here, here, and here.  There are many other small mentions, but the above 3 + source in article should be enough to establish notability under the GNG. Pinging  who accepted this at AfC for input. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:02, 9 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I believe that the subject is notable. There are many other sources that cover him, which has been deleted in the article for some reason. William2001 (talk) 00:35, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * , I only removed three sources: IMDb, LinkedIn, and a press release, none of which are reliable sources. Primefac (talk) 10:08, 10 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete The fuller version is at ; it differed only in containing list of episodes, with no additional reliable sources. except one local newspaper  piece. The NYTimes source here is their routine filmography listing, not an actual article- it like the executive listings at Barrons. If it were, he might be notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)
 * While it is true the removed sources do not establish notability, as you know sources need not be in an article to establish notability. In addition to the one current source, I have pointed out 3 additional ones with extensive coverage above.  That should be sufficient to establish notability. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:30, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Weak Keep. While the article is presently threadbare and not about a top-tier entertainer, I am reasonably certain that, given a near thirty-year career, some RS should exist to generate minimal notability. For instance, he appears to be embroiled in a scam. Pax 03:36, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 06:55, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you ThaddeusB for doing the research and finding these references. As I mentioned in my discussion with user Primefac which can be found https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Primefac#Nomination_of_Michael_Palance_for_deletion. The actor has been a part of many roles, however that was before the age of the internet and therefore digital references are hard to find for him. Should we add the references ThaddeusB referred to above to the page? They seem as reliable sources to me as well (as far as I have read about that!) Kingoptimizer (talk) 23:57, 16 February 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 00:05, 22 February 2015 (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.