Deletion of Gregory Scott Cummins

Comment: Throwing aside that {{User link|Salmodavl}} has been blocked as a sockpuppet, the links provided to the offline articles (assuming they are legit) seem to satisfy  requirement for multiple sources of significant coverage.  However, lacking any evidence that the acting roles are major to satisfy , the subject seems un-of-the-mill.  Also, the sources are from local papers from his hometown in Contra Costa and from Hawaii where he went to college.  While it shouldnt be automatically discounted because , I do wonder if based on the ROTM nature if these are Wikipedia:Independent sources that are discriminating or is this an example of a local feel-good story. This could be a case to invoke the presumed clause of GNG which says "significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article." I will abstain from !voting unless a compelling argument sways me
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:NACTOR||WP:R||WP:ITSLOCAL)

Comment: The longer I've looked at this article and thought about it, the more I'm convinced that he does not merit an article. He does not meet  since he never played in a pro game. He does not appear to meet  since he doesn't seem to have had significant roles in multiple notable films, nor does he have a large fan base or cult following, nor has he made a special contribution to the field of acting. He's probably close to the line on meeting , but as Bagumba pointed out, the coverage seems fairly un-of-the-mill
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NGRIDIRON||WP:NACTOR||WP:GNG||WP:R)

Comment: Per my earlier comments at , person does not meet  or .  With no evidence that the acting roles were anything significant, even if numerous, the actor is un-of-the-mill and fails the presumption of notability of , which allows that "Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article." The article was created by a blocked sockpuppet {{User link|Expewikiwriter}}, and this AfD was commented on by a related sockpuppet, {{User link|Salmodavl}}.  While articles should be based on the merits of the content and the available sources and not judged solely by who created them, the fact that I was leaning towards "delete" and and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Artie04/Archive|the sockpuppet investigation "suggest promotional paid editing" convinces me to commit to deletion
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NGRIDIRON||WP:NACTOR||WP:R||WP:GNG)