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. Black Kite (talk) 09:27, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Conphidance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article recreated by a SPA editor after the result of the first AfD was "soft delete". Current sourcing is either from unreliable sources, press releases, or is simply mentions of him. Searches did not turn up the type of in-depth coverage of him to show he passes WP:GNG, and he certainly doesn't pass WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 TT me 12:37, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 13:55, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 13:56, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 13:56, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 13:56, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:14, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Comment - but no "significant roles", as required to meet WP:NACTOR, and you just confirmed he doesn't meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 06:05, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover(U)(T)(C) 17:23, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I can't figure out if Rolling Out is a WP:RS or not. I can't find anything that talks about their editorial policy, who publishes it, anything like that. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:12, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith: Then you are using a standard that is not consistent with policy. See WP:GNG. It says "significant coverage" and not "in-depth coverage." Therefore your argument seems to be counter to this. -- Fuzheado | Talk 19:03, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've updated my comment, but that doesn't really change anything. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:25, 30 September 2017 (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.