Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Shellen


 * 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. Consensus is "keep" as the strongest delete argument is that WP:NACTOR is met, but WP:V is not. Subsequently, sources have been provided purporting to meet WP:V, which remain unchallenged for over a week. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 13:20, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Stephen Shellen

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Yes, I admit the article passes WP:NACTOR since Shellen has played significant roles in Casual Sex? and Damned River. However, the article fails WP:BASIC. The only source available is IMDb, which is not reliable. Believe me, I've tried searching for sources besides IMDb to no avail. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 17:56, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:59, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:59, 18 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Question. Is it your contention that all people must satisfy WP:BASIC in addition to the relevant WP:SNG, or is that restricted to actors? It is standard practice to keep articles where their subjects satisfy the applicable SNG, so I don't see how your nomination makes a case for deletion unless you are suggesting a different standard applies here. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 21:18, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I assumed all BLP articles, actor or not, needed to pass WP:BASIC in order to be eligible to be articles on Wikipedia. If you think I made an error, I'd be happy to withdraw the nomination. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 21:23, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , I think you could have a case for deletion under WP:V if it's true that the only "source" available is the unreliable IMDb. I haven't looked at the sources yet so I'm not sure if that's true, and leaving this open so that others can determine the existence or lack thereof of RS seems appropriate. But I don't think you can argue against inclusion on notability grounds, as it would defeat the purpose of SNGs to require compliance with GNG/BASIC in every case anyway. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 21:27, 18 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep Meets WP:NACTOR and the GNG. There are multiple non-trivial sources out there, but they're behind paywalls. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. GoldenAgeFan1 (talk) 22:01, 18 October 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.