Muse Watson: As always, actors are not "inherently" notable just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on their sourceability -- but this, as written, is sourced to a directory entry, a production photograph and a glancing namecheck of his existence, which is not enough. It was also formerly a lot longer and listed a lot more (supporting) roles, but none of that content was sourced either, with the result that it recently got restubbed down to this -- but even just restoring the old content wouldn't actually fix the problem, because an actor's notability resides in his sourcing and not just in the ability to list roles in and of itself.  Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be referenced considerably better than this.  Bearcat ( talk ) 02:50, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and United States of America .  Bearcat ( talk ) 02:50, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Really?  You nominated Mike Franks.  Passes both NACTOR (which by itself is sufficiant if properly verified) and GNG.  I've updated the page.  duffbeerforme ( talk ) 02:51, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] NACTOR is not passed by listing roles, it's passed by the article showing a GNG-worthy volume of media coverage about him and the roles, and no role in any film is ever so "inherently" notable as to exempt its actor from having to be sourced properly .  Bearcat ( talk ) 15:53, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep Other than the the sources in the article, I'm seeing slashfilm.com , another one , TheThings , a paragraph in this from Hollywood Reporter , Express , Hello , and a lot more covering his leaving NCIS and his role in I Know What You Did Last Summer.  Not the best sources, but add up to notability in my eyes.  Rusalkii ( talk ) 21:30, 26 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  03:49, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I wouldn't call the Mike Franks role on NCIS substantial, he comes out maybe once a season for an episode or two.  Not sure the rest of the roles establish notability either.  Bit parts.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:43, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above exceptionally lazy ! vote seems to have mixed up substantial and significant and has not bothered looking a any parts not mentioned here.  Such as lead roles in notable films.  It also totally ignores the prime claims from keep comments, the available coverage.  duffbeerforme ( talk ) 10:29, 2 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not familiar with his other works and sources used in the article are a photo and a movie list from the NYT, so they don't help notability.  Unfamiliar isn't lazy I'm afraid.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:34, 7 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: It's more important to evaluate Rusalkii's sources and those in the article than what you think of him as an actor and the roles he's had.  Does he meet NACTOR?  Right now, there is no consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  03:33, 7 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It he's the lead character in the "What You Did Last Summer" movies, I suppose it's notable...  Unsure at this point.  The sources talk about the character and the movies.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:36, 7 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:NACTOR , part of the WP:BIO SNG, meaning GNG is not required.  Meets this SNG with significant roles in Prison Break , I Know What You Did Last Summer , I Still Know What You Did Last Summer , NCIS .   — siro χ o 06:57, 7 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] NACTOR does not exempt a person from having to pass GNG — the question of whether the roles are even significant enough to satisfy NACTOR in the first place requires said roles to be supported by GNG-worthy sourcing telling us the roles were significant, so NACTOR can never be passed by a person who isn't simultaneously passing GNG.  Bearcat ( talk ) 04:44, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Please stop making up additional requirements that are not part of the SNGs.  duffbeerforme ( talk ) 09:04, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't have to stop, because I never started.  People routinely try to insert themselves, or outright hoax topics, into Wikipedia by falsely claiming passage of an SNG that they don't really pass in reality — for example, actor articles routinely try to puff up the significance of the subject's roles, as in "So-and-so is an actor best known for [non-speaking bit part]" — so it's been a standard consensus , routinely upheld at AFD for years , that passing an SNG is never just a matter of saying that the SNG is passed, and always depends on the quality and depth and volume of GNG-worthy sourcing that can or can't be brought to show that the claim to passing the SNG is true .  Bearcat ( talk ) 12:13, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] GNG does not override SNGs and nowhere in NACTOR does it say "GNG-worthy sourcing", whatever the fuck that means.  Yes it does need to be properly verified but there is no need to simultaneously pass GNG in the SNG.  If you want to get rid of this SNG then try do it elsewhere.  Not that any of that matters here since we already have a pass of GNG with the coverage in the article at the moment.  duffbeerforme ( talk ) 13:07, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] expanding on keep opinion, significant roles for NACTOR include roles on TV in NCIS and Prison Break and in films I Know What You Did Last Summer , I Still Know What You Did Last Summer White Lightnin' , A Christmas Snow and Compound Fracture .  duffbeerforme ( talk ) 03:05, 8 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: final relist Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, D u s t i *Let's talk! * 17:15, 14 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I still don't think the roles are notable enough for a stand-alone article, we have some sourcing, but it's not massive.  Meeting BIO is fine (which I'm not seeing), but we need decent sourcing that talks about him, not a photo caption or a few lines in an unrelated article.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 19:50, 14 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This is the second problematic delete here from this individual.  Says "we need decent sourcing that talks about him, not a photo caption or a few lines in an unrelated article."  At the time of that delete comment the article contained 7 references.  No 6 is a photo caption as mentioned.  I've No Idea which is the few lines in an unrelated article.  It's not No 5 which is a partial filmography (no real use here).  It's not No's 1-4 as they are all primarily about him (3 even have his name in the title), more than enough for GNG.  That leaves No 7 (which I can't read atm) which is about a film he featured in and mentions his character in the title so cannot be called unrelated.  With No's 1-4 alone we have the "decent sourcing that talks about him" that they say we need but they seem to be pretending those sources don't exist.  duffbeerforme ( talk ) 13:07, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep easily passes WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG .  You just have to look for sources.  I will try and work on the article more later and add a Filmography section.  Isaidnoway (talk) 12:05, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Passes WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG .  Just because the article needs ref work doesn't automatically mean it should be deleted.  -- TDKR Chicago 101 ( talk ) 21:10, 19 September 2023 (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