James Cade: A series of film and theatre reviews in which Cade is mentioned as a cast member do not constitute significant coverage .  Searches for sources produce more of the same.  — HTGS ( talk ) 02:08, 16 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions .  — HTGS ( talk ) 02:08, 16 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , Theatre ,  and Canada .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:36, 16 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Keep : I think this one is an obvious keep.  The subject person has taken part in numerous films, series, and theatre plays.  For films, he had notable roles in Antiviral and Stardust , both of which were mentioned in multiple sources (see Toronto Sun [46] and IndieWire [47] for Antiviral ; GQ [48] and The Hollywood Reporter [49] for Stardust ).  For TV, he was credited in a main role in Gangland Undercover (see Comingsoon.net [50] ) and The Big Cigar (see The Economic Times [51] and The Hollywood Reporter [52] ), as well as a recurring role in Blue Mountain State (see Screen Rant [53] and TheWrap [54] ).  For plays, the article already mentioned that he co-led the Dora Award -winning A Quiet Place , and I also found that he had a lead role in Free as Injuns , supported by reviews from The Globe and Mail [55] and National Post [56] which praised the subject person's performance.  Obviously fulfills WP:NACTOR #1.  — Prince of Erebor （ The Book of Mazarbul ） 07:16, 16 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I disagree that any of these roles are significant, and while “significant” might be subjective, the coverage you’ve linked goes as far as literally mentioning his name, or maybe saying “…and James Cade [is] also on board.”  The best I can see there is “There's definitely sizzle between Cade and Prudat as Even and Be” .  None of this suggests notability to me.  Even the roles he is credited as starring are not backed up by sources which say anything more than merely confirming his name.  — HTGS ( talk ) 06:36, 20 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ HTGS : You misunderstood my point.  The reason I cited those sources was not because they have SIGCOV about the subject person, but rather to demonstrate that he had lead roles in those projects.  The fact that he was credited in main role for Gangland Undercover , recurring role for Blue Mountain State and The Big Cigar , and was described as the male lead in Free as Injuns in multiple reviews, likely outweighs your subjective assessment of whether these roles are significant.  This undoubtedly shows the subject person has fulfilled the NACTOR #1 of having significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, and stage performances , while GNG is not considered by me, nor the other Wikipedians commented in this discussion.  — Prince of Erebor （ The Book of Mazarbul ） 07:20, 20 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You keep using words like undoubtedly, but nowhere does policy say that a leading role is enough to confer notability.  My read is that significant roles get at least moderate coverage.  These roles aren’t getting even mild coverage.  I am prepared to be outvoted though, that’s fine—as I say, “significant” is subjective—but it seems far from “obvious” or “beyond doubt” that any of these roles confer notability.  — HTGS ( talk ) 03:12, 21 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ HTGS : AFD discussion is not a vote .  But yea, multiple Wikipedians have found those roles to be significant, and I used words like undoubtedly because I did not expect there would be disagreement on this.  Some of the roles are literally credited as main roles.  I do not believe it is a subjective assessment, nor should significant roles be determined on subjective assessment.  I beg to differ with your interpretation, no guideline defines significant roles as requiring a certain amount of coverage.  As long as the lead roles are backed by reliable sources, they are lead roles.  A lead role in a film will not be reduced to a supporting role simply because there are insufficient sources covering the film.  — Prince of Erebor （ The Book of Mazarbul ） 05:00, 21 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] In your opinion, should WP:NACTOR then say “lead roles” instead of “significant roles”?  Because I assumed there was some distinction between the two, and that there was a reason the guideline says significant.  If we are merely looking for leading or “main” roles, then we may as well say so.  I’m also curious whether you actually agree with NACTOR here, and you’re not just following rules as written?  This reading gives notability to persons who do not gain any significant coverage whatsoever.  — HTGS ( talk ) 05:11, 21 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ HTGS : I think the word "significant" is used in a broader sense to include roles beyond just main roles, such as supporting/recurring roles, as well as guest roles that receive extensive coverage or attention.  The reason I specifically mentioned "main role" is because main roles are usually officially credited, and this subject person has received such credits in multiple projects, addressing your doubts about whether the roles I listed were subjective assessments.  And yes, as I stated, I believe the subject person has fulfilled NACTOR#1, and I agree that he has sufficient significant/notable roles that warrant an independent article, so it should be a keep.  Arguments on whether there are sources providing SIGCOV on the subject person are more likely referring to WP:GNG , which I did not consider in this case.  — Prince of Erebor （ The Book of Mazarbul ） 05:41, 21 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I understand that you think NACTOR has been met; I’m asking if you think it should be regarded as a useful rule here.  The guideline itself says “People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards … meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included.”  The roles at hand are still subjective assessments, because not every main role is significant.  Unless you think we should regard all main roles as significant roles.  — HTGS ( talk ) 03:05, 22 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ HTGS : I do not understand the point you are making in your first sentence.  As you have already mentioned, I have quoted NACTOR multiple times, so if I do not think it is a "useful rule", then why I would cite it??? And no, please take a more careful look at the guidelines.  It writes significant roles in multiple notable [projects] , not "roles in multiple notable projects that are significant".  A main role is of course a significant part of a project.  A film could not be made without a lead cast!  So main roles are of course significant roles.  Even if your interpretation was applied, the films and series we have listed all have their own independent articles, which means they are notable.  So main roles in these notable projects should be considered significant, simple!  With all due respect, I really do not see a point of ambiguity or reasonable basis for disagreement in this case, because you seem to have either misinterpreted or tried to override WP:SNG with GNG, and be the only one to identify the roles with subjective assessments here.  At least two main roles and one recurring role on TV, two lead roles in stage plays, two supporting roles in films.  Obvious keep, that is all I have to say.  — Prince of Erebor （ The Book of Mazarbul ） 04:41, 22 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : meets WP:NACTOR with at least two roles easily identifiable as significant (in Stardust and Blue MS) - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 11:17, 16 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Passes NACTOR through roles in Let's Get Physical , Gangland Undercover , Cascade and Blue Mountain State .  Somebodyidkfkdt ( talk ) 14:09, 16 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: keep