Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bencino Carmine

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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:40, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bencino Carmine (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)

Biography of an actor who does not meet WP:NACTOR nor WP:GNG. He had one role that may have been fairly major per [1], in one season of a TV series (but not in earlier or subsequent seasons), and apart from that only a number of minor roles. Note that he has apparently changed his name recently, so earlier work is as Benny (or Benjamin) Ciaramello. bonadea contributions talk 12:38, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de} L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:50, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de} L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:55, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep searching the 2nd version of his name I found coverage of his role as Santiago on Friday Night Lights and listings of other major roles in various sources. Seems to meet wp:actor. FloridaArmy (talk) 23:46, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which other major roles? As I pointed out above, the Friday Night Lights show might be considered major (albeit borderline, as he was only in one season of the show and apparently not one of the main characters in that season either), but as you know, WP:NACTOR specifies multiple significant roles. The other roles mentioned in the article are not major or significant. It would also be great if you listed the sources here (or, even better, added them to the article) since "There are sources" is not a particularly compelling argument when those sources are not identified. --bonadea contributions talk 10:18, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• KeepWeak Delete (see discussion below) Searching for "Benny Ciaramello" seems to return a number of results on film sites like IMDB, Rotten Tomatoes, and AlloCiné. There are also news articles published on the man. Hickland (talk) 03:57, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IMDb and Rotten Tomatoes are not useful for the purpose of establishing notability as they contain mainly user generated content. I have checked all three websites you mention but can't find anything other than trivial listings of the person. The deadline.com link you added here is also a trivial mention, it is neither a news article nor an article about him. --bonadea contributions talk 10:18, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(sorry for the late reply, this slipped under my radar) I agree that the subject does not meet the criteria outlined in WP:NACTOR. I also suppose that Rotten Tomatoes and IMDb are not reliable sources, and in the absence of any other reliable sources with significant coverage of the subject, I concede. How can I change my vote? Hickland (talk) 03:59, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Hickland: - sorry that no-one came along to answer the question. The usual method is to strikethrough your original answer with <s>Keep/Delete/Merge etc</s> and put in a new answer next to it (i.e. in the same bold answer bit). It is probably worth indenting a comment below explaining that you've changed your vote. Some people strike through the entirety of their comment and add a new !vote at the bottom. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:29, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Got it, thanks :) Hickland (talk) 19:04, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete - the strictness of WP:NACTOR with (multiple) major roles needed is sufficient to warrant the deletion of the article, though things like Secrets and Lies gets a small (large mentions in effect) coverage for his recurring roles. We may (or may not) also get some coverage via the production coverage work in the near future (lots of mentions of existence, no real bits yet). Therefore I'd say a weak delete with no prejudice against recreation once we get a couple of better sources. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:38, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not suggestion of notability. Deb (talk) 15:11, 9 June 2018 (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.