Deletion of Douglas Tait

Comment: I see three ways this actor could pass |notability via -- 1) ; 2) ; 3) or --but I do not think he quite does. '''1)''' For , I do not see anyone arguing he passes No. 3. I do not think he meets No. 1 because his most significant roles were minor characters in notable movies, stuntman parts playing major characters--but not being the actual actor credited with playing the part--in notable movies, and major roles in non-notable movies. I do not see that as the same as "significant roles in multiple notable films". For No. 2, I do not see any |reliable sources that say something like "Tait has a large fan base". Many fan sites or discussions of fan sites is not the same as a reliable source saying so, even if that would be enough to support a journalist to say so. '''2)''' For , I do not think anyone could argue for Nos. 2, 4, or 5. For No. 1, I do not know whether this applies at all to this sort of filmmaker. It does not look like he is well-known yet for his filmmaking or that others reference his work. For No. 3, I do not see his film being reviewed as this one requires to pass. '''3)''' For , he needs to have received coverage in "multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." Moreover, "trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." I see a good deal of trivial coverage--not to say unimportant coverage, but lists of cast members, even in a |reliable source do not pass it in my opinion. I do see several Canyon News articles that undoubtedly have "the depth of coverage"  calls for to pass. In fact, I see one more than mentioned in the nomination.  They were both written by Tommy Garrett. I am not sure if this is the publicist Tommy Garrett described in http://www.imdb.com/name/nm3092388/bio this biography or http://www.readthehook.com/82090/news-garretts-plea-publicist-guilty-reduced-charge this news article, but http://www.canyon-news.com/artman2/publish/On_the_Industry_1168/True_Blood_s_Soul_Of_Fire_In_Hollywoodland.php this Canyon News piece makes it seem so. Even if not, I do not think we can consider the Canyon News pieces to be "intellectually independent of each other" because they were written by the same person. I also do not think we know whether the stories meet the independent sources criteria to help pass  as stated in , especially if one can write their own article and have it published (however true it may be) if they buy a certain number of advertisements. Also related to this criteria, I see many blog or fan articles and interviews that do not meet the "reliable" criteria of , not because I think they are lying or anything, but because they would not meet that criteria as described in . The Inkless Magazine article is a close call. Ultimately I do not is meets  either. Even commenters to the articles seem to refer to it as a blog. Its publisher describes it http://www.renderednetworks.com/?page_id=320 on this webpage, but I can't find much else to support it as a reliable source as described in . '''Conclusion''', because I do not think any of the  criteria are fully passed, I do not think this actor passes |notability, though it is a close case. This is not to say he will not in the future, but this may be a case of otJustYet
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:BIO||WP:ENT||WP:CREATIVE||WP:BASIC||WP:ENT||WP:RS||WP:CREATIVE||WP:BASIC||WP:RS||WP:BASIC||WP:BASIC||WP:IS||WP:BASIC||WP:RS||WP:RS||WP:RS||WP:BASIC||WP:N||WP:N)

Comment: I just reverted the non-admin closure of this AfD. While I may not agree with everything Novaseminary has written, having reviewed all of the sourcing (as I noted above in my delete !vote), there is very little in the way of |reliable sources cited in the article. What reliable sources are cited have nothing but minimal mention of Tait. The !vote itself is 4 to 2, with one of the "keepers" having had no unrelated edits and a minimal grasp of Wikipedia policies. One of the other "keepers" created the article and is, at the very least, somewhat invested in it, though there is no shame in that, of course. Another of the "keepers" did not address whether it matters whether the primary source of "in-depth" coverage of Tait "sells" articles (however accurate those articles might be). The other "keeper" was a "weak keep". I think this AfD could benefit from a relist to allow others to actually review the sources
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)