Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Blake Kruse

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. ✗plicit 11:37, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Blake Kruse

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails notability guidelines. Out of all the refs only 1 is more or less acceptable. No significant coverage found. Also fails WP:NACTOR. Less Unless (talk) 13:25, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Less Unless (talk) 13:25, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:37, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - minor roles, little to no third party coverage.-KH-1 (talk) 05:04, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - I added an additional source and items to personal life section. I do believe references #1, #2, #13, and #18 are reliable. He does seem to have significant roles in multiples productions. However, perhaps not sufficient coverage from secondary sources? As original author, I now have a better understanding of "nobility." Kookooburra (talk) 08:11, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I located and added an additional mention from Variety - reference #16. Kookooburra (talk) 23:28, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:31, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - minor actor in minor roles. Absolutely no in-depth coverage in any reliable sources. Being mentioned as a cast member in Variety does nothing to establish notability. Being discussed in his hometown paper does not establish notability whatsoever when that hometown has a population of under 3,000. The links to actor compendiums and resumes do not establish notability (and most are dead links). The festivals where Swim won awards are not major or in themselves notable. Swim itself is a very minor short film. Ultimately, just a lot of really weak sources. And a lot of bad sourcing is just the same as no sourcing at all. Fails GNG, NACTOR ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 20:58, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The subject has had one main role in a film, so he falls shy of the WP:NACTOR threshold. There does not appear to be sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG, either. This may be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Dflaw4 (talk) 13:22, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG upcoming a case of WP:TOOSOON.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:19, 14 November 2021 (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.