Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dylan Playfair (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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Sandstein 18:49, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan Playfair

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP of an actor, not adequately referenced as having a stronger claim to passing WP:NACTOR than he had at the time of the first AFD discussion. As always, NACTOR is not automatically passed just because the article has acting roles listed in it — at this point he's still "known" almost entirely for supporting and guest roles and/or short films, with no strong evidence that any of his roles count as major ones. The sourcing isn't adequate to get him over WP:GNG for them either, as four of the five footnotes just glancingly namecheck his existence in the process of not being about him to any non-trivial degree. There is one source that actually has him as its main subject, which is a start, but it doesn't clinch him as notable all by itself if it's the only such source in play. As always, actors do not automatically get an inclusion freebie just because they exist: they still need a stronger notability claim, such as multiple significant roles (which is not the same thing as "all roles") and/or notable acting awards, and they still need more than just one hit of media coverage that's actually about them. Bearcat (talk) 03:15, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 03:15, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 03:15, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion:? While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it was previously discussed at AfD and the result was delete. --Cewbot (talk) 00:03, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Previous discussions: 2017-08 ✗ delete

Logs: 2020-09 ✍️ create, 2017-10 ✗ G4, 2017-08 ✗ deleted

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:59, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:00, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.