Deletion of Thomas James Longley

Comment: Many references, although most are either trivial or of uncertain |reliability.  I'm assuming that the 2004 Times article is more substantial and direct, as it is cited as directly praising the subject.  If this is the case, this probably is enough to constitute notability alongside the other sources
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: While the subject of the article is not yet famous, that's not the only criteria for notability.  His roles in his (somewhat) limited repertoire have been sufficient to be noted in press articles in Sneak Peek, The Movie Pool, Horror Asylum amongst others.  One article, noting his dropping OUT of a film produced a news article, so I don't think notability can really be the argument for deletion.  He clearly passes  and given the coverage in reliable sources, seems to pass  as well
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BASIC||WP:N)

Comment: The BBC ref and the Times article seem to satisfy 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ENT)