Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shaun Benson


 * 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 Withdraw and Keep as I'm not certain this AfD is going to get any other comments and the improvements are enough for now (NAC). SwisterTwister  talk  06:04, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Shaun Benson

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Frankly I would've PRODed but, considering his two best known works are 22 episodes of a 2002-2003 TV series and then a year for a 2004-2005 General Hospital character. My searches found nothing better than the expected sources which include gossip and the like at News, browsers and Highbeam. Thus everything is questionable for WP:ENTERTAINER. SwisterTwister  talk  06:50, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  06:50, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  06:50, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete' Fails notability guidelines. Cindlevet (talk) 20:23, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Google News is not where one would expect to find strong sourcing for any notability claim tied to career details anytime prior to the 2010s, and Highbeam isn't a good place to look for Canadian media coverage at all. Ten minutes in ProQuest's Canadian Newsstand Major Dailies database, however, and I was able to source this into the double digits. Keep; article has been revised for writing tone and sourcing improvements. Bearcat (talk) 21:26, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. References are mostly passing mentions of the subject, but there's enough there to establish notability. Cleanup by Bearcat has salvaged the article. Good work. That being said, the article is probably destined to remain a stub for quite some time, until such time as the subject becomes more notable... But that's quite alright. If that happens, of course- but it usually does with borderline entertainers. Involved editors should keep an eye out for promotional edits and puffery; I'll watchlist it to help in that regard. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 07:10, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 17:23, 11 March 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 06:26, 20 March 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.