Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Lund (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 defaulting to keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:30, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Steve Lund
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Note that the previous discussion was about a different person with the same name, so is not relevant to this topic at all — this article, in this form, hijacked an existing redirect from a corporate CEO to his company and replaced it with the actor. There are also still inbound links to this title that are still expecting the CEO, furthermore — most of the actor's redlinks were and are waiting for him at Steve Lund (actor), not here. (I've temporarily redirected that title here in the meantime, but depending on the outcome of this discussion it will have to be dealt with as well.) This is WP:BLP of an actor, who is not yet sufficiently well-sourced to deem him notable. As always, actors are not handed an automatic free pass over WP:NACTOR just because they've had roles — having roles is the job, so every actor would always get a free notability pass if all you had to do was state that they've had roles. So the notability test for an actor is not just the list of roles itself, but the reception of distinctions, such as a major acting award and/or having had enough reliable source coverage paid to his acting to get him over WP:GNG for it. Although I salvaged this from the BLPPROD pile by adding sources, there's simply not yet enough sourcing to render him keepable: literally the only strong source I could find is one substantive article about him from his hometown alt-weekly, which isn't enough to get him over the finish line all by itself, and other than that it's possible only to glancingly verify his existence in some other articles that aren't about him, so there just isn't enough coverage to consider him a notable actor yet. That may change once Street Legal premieres, so no prejudice against recreation in the future if and when his substantive coverage bulks up and/or he gets a Canadian Screen Award nomination next year for it — but as of today, the notability test he would have to meet is "passes GNG on the media coverage", and he just doesn't have enough yet. Bearcat (talk) 20:51, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 21:10, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:16, 11 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete: Per nom who tried to salvage the stub but there just isn't enough notability. I give applauds though because the unreliable user-generated IMDb being used through the "External links" as a source is a travesty. Otr500 (talk) 06:33, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - Passes WP:NACTOR, significant roles in at least two productions Schitt's Creek and Bitten (TV series). Plus, a news search of him provides enough coverage for him to pass WP:GNG. Also had a lead role in a Hallmark TV film, The Christmas Cottage, a significant recurring role in the tv series Haven, and has apparently been cast as one of the leads in the upcoming reboot of Street Legal] (although I'm not sure if production has begun on that one). Another significant role was in season 4 of [[Reign (TV series)|Reign. The earlier AfD was about a non-notable businessman, but this actor clearly passes notability criteria.  Onel 5969  TT me 17:57, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * NACTOR is not automatically passed just because an actor has had roles — every actor would always get an automatic free pass over NACTOR if simply providing technical verification that they've had acting roles was enough to exempt them from having to clear GNG on the sourcing, because having acting roles is the job description. NACTOR is passed when the subject is substantively the subject of enough media coverage to clear WP:GNG for having had roles. That is, an actor doesn't automatically get over NACTOR just because his name gets glancingly namechecked in the cast lists of TV shows or films, he gets over NACTOR if and when multiple reliable sources have profiled him as a person. Bearcat (talk) 18:19, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep, even though not the B grade actor from the 1960s that I was thinking of, he has an impressive history with reoccurring roles in at least seven television series'. Karl Twist (talk) 09:56, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:52, 18 February 2019 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:23, 25 February 2019 (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.