Deletion of Kirk Fox

Comment: Michael's list of the subject's film and TV appearances is a big step forward for the article; kudos to him for this undertaking.  It's clearer that the subject has been and remains a working actor.  I've sampled (though not exhaustively) the filmography that Michael provided and see small parts in most films and top-10 billing in some non-notables.  I wonder, though, if someone can articulate just how  is satisfied with regard to significant roles in multiple, notable productions.  Thanks
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ENTERTAINER)

Comment: My reasoning is this: Wikipedia:Bio#Basic_criteria|Bio's basic criteria state "''If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability''", which statement indicates that if the depth of coverage is itself not substantial, muliple instances of less-than-substantial but more-than-trival may be considered when determining notability. And then at  we have "''Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, or other productions''". His having significant roles in notable films is not to be discounted simply because he has also had minor roles in non-notable films. All actors begin with minor and work toward significant. Such is part of the career process. Some examples
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ENT)

Comment: Did some research per |WP:AFTER and was able to expand and source the article. He meets  ("''Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, or other productions.''"). Needs more, but there is much more available in http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=kirk-fox+comedian&scoring=a&hl=en&ned=us&um=1&sa=N&start=10 Google News. As long as the COI author is mindful to not edit himself, the article can grow naturally
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE||WP:ENTERTAINER)