Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steven Grayhm


 * 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 delete. sufficient consensus  DGG ( talk ) 19:57, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Steven Grayhm

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Delete. WP:BLP of an actor who does not yet have any strong claim to passing WP:NACTOR. An actor is not automatically entitled to an article the moment he can be verified as having one role in one television series; it takes multiple significant roles in multiple projects, or acting awards, or at least sufficient reliable source coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. But the sourcing here is parked on a Q&A-style interview (not a source which can assist notability, because the subject is talking about himself), a glancing namecheck of his existence in an article that's about one of the other actors in the series, and a casting announcement blurb -- which means GNG has not been met, and the claim itself is not substantive enough to exempt him from having to be sourced better than this. Bearcat (talk) 18:55, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not all film directors are notable, and there is not enough coverage to suggest he passes GNG. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  06:54, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:44, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:44, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete non-notable actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:13, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment There was more than the Deadline coverage to be found, but the coverage mainly mentioned him as joining Between's cast in articles about Netflix or the show itself, so it was the kind of coverage which doesn't cover the subject in detail. There were also some articles about other projects which mentioned him, which makes this a bit trickier and we withhold from voting delete, but I think it might be a stretch to keep. Maybe I'll once again give him the benefit of doubt and say WP:TOOSOON. Even a single big article would have bent me over to voting keep. Mr. Magoo (talk) 19:05, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I added 4 articles containing Thunder Road coverage. Mr. Magoo (talk) 19:19, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 01:37, 2 September 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 18:11, 11 September 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 01:08, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete non-notable. All references in article are minor mentions, no in-depth coverage. MB 01:26, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per rationale at WP:UNOPPOSED. No keep rationale has been provided.  In this case...  WP:RELISTINGISEVIL.  We have our answer.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:37, 23 September 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.