Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nathan Parsons (2nd nomination)


 * 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. 3 deletes, but appears work has been done to address intial concerns thus the latter !votes rank equal as they require valid consideration. Nja 247 08:46, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Nathan Parsons
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Article previously deleted in AfD, no new info to assert broader notability, and no sources in this restored version either &mdash; TAnthonyTalk 08:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * G4 repost with no attempt to address the deleted article's issues. - 2 ... says you, says me 16:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete. G4. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:37, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete without prejudice. I changed my opinion from the first AfD since I can no longer see the original and only had the newer from which to work. So I went and did some sourcing and cleanup on the article before bringing my opinion here. The man's work in General Hospital is confirmed by addition of a reliable source confirmation. In searching for his name, I did find the one source, but not find enough currently to meet WP:GNG. Considering his 60+ appearances on GH, this is likely to change. It would make sense to userfy to the author and allow return once the notability guidelines can be met.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 00:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Struck my delete. The article now addresses earlier and curent concerns. (see below)  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 02:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I have a copy of the old article here, as I was working on it during the 1st AfD. As you can see, it had many references (more than this version) but was still deleted.&mdash; TAnthonyTalk 13:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, thank you for the link. In your previous work on the article, you were able to show him easily meeting the requirements of WP:GNG. Yet the opinions at the previous AfD centered on WP:ENT as a reason to exclude rather than noting the easy passing of both the GNG and the Basic Criteria of WP:BIO. The closer made no opinion of the discussion. Just "result was delete". The improvements made by yourself were exemplary, and his closure felt like he was doing a head-count. No need to rehash the drama, but I was surprised it was not taken to DRV, as all issues discusses at the previous AfD had been addressed.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 18:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I previously improved/defended the article in good faith with no personal attachments, accepting its deletion per policy/consensus and obviously nominating it again here upon its inappropriate resurrection. Since you seem to suggest above that the deletion may have been premature or discussed elsewhere, for the sake of this "new" AFD I've restored the article to its pre-deletion and most defendable form.&mdash; TAnthonyTalk 19:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep to the article as it has now been improved since the start of the AfD. With respects to the nominator, and being able to compare the earlier version that was deleted to the stub that was sent to AfD, I saw that the article might indeed be improved through WP:CLEANUP to address the earlier concerns and show notability though meeting the WP:GNG. Parsons has indeed received the sigificant covrage required by guideline.  So I just completed giving the article a complete overhaul and re-structuring to show the subject as meeting the inclusion requirements of WP:GNG. Sure wish User:Dimera12 had done as much before bringing it back... but with the nom sharing his sandbox, all became possible. I now rescind my earlier ivote.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 02:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep New character on General Hospital with a significant character and plot line, and gaining notability in the soap opera world and daytime television. BioDetective2508 (talk) 20:37, 29 June 2009
 * 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.