Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ethan Cutkosky (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The result was Withdrawn and keep as no one ever suggested a serious delete (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 20:30, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ethan Cutkosky[edit]

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

Okay this was previously deleted per AFD-however the guy might be more notable now-but still I find this to have questionable notability, at best I would say a redirect for now. Wgolf (talk) 18:57, 26 October 2015 (UTC)WithdrawnWgolf (talk) 19:54, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WP:ENT, I think his roles on The Unborn and Shameless (a main character on that show it appears) are sufficient to establish notability. FuriouslySerene (talk) 19:41, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:36, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:36, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Split between weak keep or redirect to Shameless as 61 episodes so far is something but not entirely convincing of a separate article. Pinging past AfD commenters LibStar, Whpq, Ponyo and MichaelQSchmidt. SwisterTwister talk 05:12, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-Yeah I am starting to think weak keep might be better-I did have the csd for previously deleted but then I was thinking he might be notable enough to have a second shot around this. Wgolf (talk) 05:17, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep now per meeting WP:GNG and pushing nicely at WP:ENT, and continue growth along with his career and coverage. I opined a delete 6 years ago based upon his career being so very short and his coverage generally lacking, but suggested that the topic might be returned in that situation changes. Now that it has, we can welcome this fellow into Wikipedia. Losd of WP:SIGCOV available now that did not exist six years ago. For instance, Chicago Tribune (01-08-09) offers a quite decent and lengthy article about this actor, and we also have fine ones in Chicago Daily Herald (01-08-11), Los Angeles Times (02-24-11), Chicago Daily Herald (07-19-12), Chicago Daily Herald (04-01-14), and many more. While in 2009 sources were scarce, time has corrected that lack. Enough sources speak about and offer details on his life, upbringing, and career, that WP:BIO is now a lock. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:14, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:33, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per excellent analysis above, passes WP:GNG and WP:ENT. Cavarrone 17:31, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there appears to be sufficient coverage now to meet inclusion guidelines. -- Whpq (talk) 19:38, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw-As I said earlier-I was iffy about putting this up or not-as it was previously deleted but since he seemed notable enough now...anyway I'm withdrawing! Wgolf (talk) 19:54, 28 October 2015 (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.