Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jake Canuso

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. 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.

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 08:48, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Canuso

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability. The only sources cited are Canuso's own web site and IMDb. Likewise web searches have failed to produce significant independent coverage. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:16, 21 March 2011 (UTC) JamesBWatson (talk) 14:16, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral actor with mostly really minor roles ("Italian Waiter", "Barman at Spa Hotel", etc) but there is one recurring role on a TV series that IMDB counts as 25 episodes. That's more than nothing to be sure, but we can't keep a BLP without reliable sources, and the article has a lot of trivia as well. Count this as a delete if no sources show up by end of the AFD period and a keep if sources are found. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Definitely some minor film roles, but some are named characters.[1] His TV work includes more named roles, and his work as Mateo in 25 episodes of Benidorm (TV series) has a bit of coverage from 2005 to the present.[2] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:10, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 5 minutes of searching GNews throws up a few reasonable, if weak, sources which I have now added. His Benidorm role was a major character in a top UK comedy series, it would seem intuitive that there is every likelihood of improvement to sources in the future and in these situations there is no particular reason to limit such improvement to 7 days of AfD rather than using the more welcoming standard improvement notices. Fæ (talk) 23:10, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't know what Fæ means by reasonable, if weak, sources, but all I can see is weak sources. Nothing in them shows notability. Elton Bunny (talk) 15:40, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He has been on several major UK TV programmes, appeared in several films. He has also had lots of media attention in the UK and appearing on Chat shows doing interviews ect. He is notable. IJA (talk) 20:23, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I was going to say "weak keep", as he seems to have been in a few roles worthy of note, although as it stands this article reads quite badly, as if it was written by a fan or somebody connected to him. Having said that, if he has fans, then presumably he's sortof worthy of inclusion? Don't mind either way, really. That's probably not very helpful for the closing admin - sorry. Bob talk 00:00, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Accepting "if he has fans, then presumably he's sortof worthy of inclusion" would be a dramatic change in Wikipedia's standards. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:49, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, that comment wasn't really meant to be taken very seriously, although I'd always understood that the general notability criteria for actors was that if they'd had several named roles (as opposed to "man walking dog") or been in a regular part in a production then they are worthy for inclusion. This actor has had a regular part in a popular television series plus other named roles, so meets the criteria for inclusion. Bob talk 15:52, 11 April 2011 (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.