Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas James Longley


 * 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. per WP:ENT (non-admin closure) — Hue  Sat  Lum  00:50, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Thomas James Longley

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Non-notable actor. Ridernyc (talk) 00:42, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - Has WP:BEFORE been followed? What did the nominator find? Carrite (talk) 00:56, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Before was followed. I have actually been checking all these articles today and suspect major conflict of interest and puppetry going with these pages.  The movie and none of the actors in them appear to pass notability and many of the articles seem to be created by users with similar editing styles and patterns, some of whom have been blocked from editing. If have a real reason why the article should be kept you are welcome to comment.   Ridernyc (talk) 01:10, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Weak keep. Many references, although most are either trivial or of uncertain reliability.  I'm assuming that the 2004 Times article is more substantial and direct, as it is cited as directly praising the subject.  If this is the case, this probably is enough to constitute notability alongside the other sources. JulesH (talk) 18:26, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep The BBC ref and the Times article seem to satisfy WP:ENT--William Thweatt Talk | Contribs 06:33, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep While the subject of the article is not yet famous, that's not the only criteria for notability. His roles in his (somewhat) limited repertoire have been sufficient to be noted in press articles in Sneak Peek, The Movie Pool, Horror Asylum amongst others.  One article, noting his dropping OUT of a film produced a news article, so I don't think notability can really be the argument for deletion.  He clearly passes WP:BASIC and given the coverage in reliable sources, seems to pass WP:N as well.  Vertium (talk) 02:23, 5 June 2012 (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.