Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nathan Keyes

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2009 December 12.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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. Doesn't meet WP:ENT or WP:GNG. Wait until he's got significant coverage. Fences&Windows 21:39, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Keyes

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

Another article on an bit-part actor largely culled from IMDb listings and Facebook profile due to lack of any other content regarding them. Right now, their body of work fails WP:ENT and given this has been created and speedied three times this year for lack of notability I doubt this'd turn out different. Salt if necessary. treelo _radda 10:26, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 10:27, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: He has one major role in a notable movie which is Ben 10: Alien Swarm. I can't find significant coverage for this actor. Joe Chill (talk) 14:26, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Löschen. Fails ~~WP:CREATIVE~~ WP:ENT. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 17:20, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The correct guideline would be WP:ENT. Joe Chill (talk) 17:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was just about to fix that--edit conflict. Fails that too. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 17:22, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prjudice toward recreation. He may not quite meet WP:ENT, and is just pushing toward meeting WP:GNG [1], but as written the article is a mass of unsourced information that fails WP:BLP. Despite past speedies, salting is not required as the issue of WP:GNG sourcing appears that past problems may soon be quite fixable. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:39, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rewrite. The article needs a significant rewrite, but I believe he is notable. Michaelh2001 (talk) 09:48, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per Johnny and Joe. Cynof Gavuf 08:50, 5 December 2009 (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.