Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Van Epperson

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 delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:44, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Van Epperson

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

Tagged for sources ten years ago with only IMDB as a source. Recent edit requests have offered non-WP:RS to support roles. WP:BEFORE discloses WP:USERGENERATED content, promotional pages, a few passing mentions, and professional directories. No significant coverage in independent sources is evident. No evidence that he meets the requirements of WP:ENT. If taken at face value, the article's list of roles demonstrates a professional working actor who has not "...had significant roles" nor "has a large fan base or significant cult following". The most significant coverage appears to be this article in Daily Mirror claiming that he is tied with two others for third "most underrated" TV actor after saying the actor in first on the list provokes the reaction: "Who the hell is Stephen Root?" Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:10, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 21:36, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete: No reliable sources can be found for any of his appearences in movies and TV series. If you take a look at the guidelinies, he hasn't done something significant (based on sources that can be found) or a large fanbase. Based on that, you can't make any edits or edit requests because there are no sources you can quote to back the edit up. So there is nothing to add neither something to prove for the movies on his article that are already on his page. There is no other source than IMDb and a few other user-created content sites. Doesn't match the standards. 89.15.154.14 (talk) 01:17, 9 February 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.227.137.50 (talk) [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.