Deletion of Sean Power (actor)

Comment: Has received several non-exclusive but far from trivial mentions in reliable independent sources. In other words, meets 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: I checked http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BrownHairedGirl&oldid=276951354#im_such__a_computer_illiterate_but_i_found_you.21 the discussion on the nominator's talk page, that they requested we look at.  I am concerned by what appears to be a lapse from .  Nominator may have had valid concerns at the time of the nomination.  I question whether scaling the article back to insignificance, '''''and then '''''nominating it for deletion, is appropriate.  Surely the permissible choices shoudl be one, or the other?  Anyhow, without regard to whether the article's content once lapsed from compliance with  it now seems well referenced and to have been largely written by individuals who are not in a COI
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers (WP:BITE||WP:COI)

Comment: The article has been significantly expanded, and is now well-referenced. Congrats to those who have done the hard work.I'm not going to oppose the keep, since there seems to be consensus for that, but personally I'm not persuaded that it's as clear-cut as some editors suggest. He may ''just'' scrape through the "had significant roles in ''multiple'' notable productions" clause, but so far as I can see only ''Lead Balloon'' meets that test: his role in Fair City seems to have been minor, and none of the stage appearances seem to be in  notable productions.  (Note that  refers to ''multpiple'' notable roles, not just one, as MichaelQSchmidt seems to suggest above). Trying to apply the  I have read all the references provided (apart from those which require a subscription), but none of those seems to be significantly about him; he gets a mention in most of them (though not even a name listing in some), but he does not appear to be the ''subject'' of any of these reviews, and most of them give him very brief mentions.This looks to me like a borderline case -- he's one good decent news article short of meeting  and one major role short of meeting  (unless ''STUCK'' is a notable production, and it doesn't quite seem there to me). However, Power is young and clearly going places, so I expect that he will before long be clearly over the threshold of either 's general criteria or the specific criteria in , so it would be folly to delete the good work done in documenting his career so far
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:ENTERTAINER||WP:N||WP:N||WP:ENTERTAINER||WP:BIO||WP:ENTERTAINER)

Comment: I hope the nom and I are allowed to disagree in our different interpretations of guideline.  I accept that the nom is in good faith being diligent. She took the http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sean_Power_(actor)&diff=prev&oldid=283753859 original article, looked at it with proper concerns for sourcing and reduced it to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sean_Power_%28actor%29&diff=287966154&oldid=283753859 this before nominating it for deletion. Per |AFTER, |POTENTIAL, |PRESERVE, |ATD, |RESCUE, and W:CLEANUP|CLEANUP, myself and others went through it to address concerns and the Sean Power (actor)|present version is what is now under consideration for deletion
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE||WP:POTENTIAL||WP:PRESERVE||WP:ATD||WP:ARS)

Comment: Its sad to opinine delete because something is difficult to reference, but the search for  is a satizfying way to improve the project.  And again, bad that an inexperienced editor does not understand COI of ADVERT, but those are perhaps reasons to suugest adoption. Now, I had not looked at the earlier versons, wanting nothing to modify my opinion... but unmentioned by the nom is his being a co-star in all 21 episodes of the popular BBC comedy ''Lead Balloon'', which  meet the inclusion requirements of  as being a significant role in a notable television series. If the article is being subject to spamming, that is a matter for cleanup or maybe protection... not deletion. Searching for his name in relation to ''Lead Balloon'' was more successful. Mentions certainly, but sources only need to be non-trivial when the mere existence of these sources is used to establish notability. That's not the case here. The claim to be one of the stars of ''Lead Balloon'' is a claim to notability here and it ease easily verifiable... and significant appearance in a notable series speaks for itself
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:ENTERTAINER)

Comment: Schmidt, I am quite familiar with 's main criteria and with those in , and my eyes don't need to lock onto them -- I can recite them by heart.Now, if you had read what I wrote rather than having to refresh your memory of the notability guidelines (see, I can do sarcastic too!), you would see that I assessed the article against ''both'' the specific and general notability criteria, so I'm not asking you play tennis over a sub-guideline. As I noted, he'll probably get there, but so far the coverage of ''him'' (as opposed to things he has been involved in) is nearly all trivial, and some of it appears to not even mention him.You appear to be having a bad faith day, because you pile on the misrepresentations of my views.  Did you miss the bit where I said I wouldn't oppose keeping it, or  where I congratulated those involved in having expanded the articles?  It'll WP:AGF|AGF and take it that you don't read those bits, because otherwise you wouldn't be saying that my view was unchanged
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO||WP:N)

Comment: BHG, please re-read , the parent of WP:ENTERTAINER. You forgot to mention that he fails those other sub-criteria too. What an editor is "supposed" to do is, starting at the top of the page, is to slowly move one's eyes downward reading for how a person qualifies for inclusion.. and how an editor's eyes should actually lock on and read the "Basic Criteria" to see how the provided sources clearly pass those basic inclusion criteria of  through his works and their coverage and verifications through the parent criteria of  and . Guideline does not suggest one then continue down the list of subordinant criteria in order to find ones that exclude a person in contradiction to the quite clear basic criteria and the parent criteria. So I need not bother arguing about his meeting or not meeting secondary criteria, or interpretation of "multiple" in secondary criteria, when he meets all the primary criteria, through policy, guideline and . I was quite proud of the work done by
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PEOPLE||WP:PEOPLE||WP:GNG||WP:N||WP:COMMONSENSE)

Comment: A huge amount of work has gone into expanding and referencing this article, but I am still not persuaded that Power actually meets any of the notability criteria. I went through all the refs yesterday and concluded that there was no evidence of him having won significant awards, nor of him having played multiple notable roles, nor of multiple instances of substantail a coverage of him independent reliable sources.  Since then we have lots of ''assertions'' such as that the "delete" !voters are ignoring . Please could those advocating a keep set out simply the evidence for an each of these claims, such as
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)