Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Wade

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 keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:54, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Wade

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

Article about a Canadian actor, sourced exclusively to IMDB. That source appears to be particularly unreliable here, because it has apparently conflated the credits of two different actors who share the same name (see BLP complaint by IP claiming to be the "other" Michael Wade, with subsequent discussion at article talk). Couldn't find any reliable coverage about either of them – this [1] is the closest I found for "this" Michael Wade (the Canadian one), but it's not an RS either. Some RS's mention him in passing for his stage work as a Shakespeare actor and director [2][3], but I don't see these constitute the kind of in-depth coverage that would make an article viable. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:44, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:05, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:04, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing to even suggest minimal general notability. Notifying past tagger Theroadislong. SwisterTwister talk 03:07, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not sourced to reliable sources. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:19, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I found a couple of improved references in ProQuest's Canadian Newsstand Major Dailies database. Not as much as I was hoping for, because between inconsistent archiving and abstract-only-no-text that database tends to be a royal pain in the ass when it comes the Atlantic Canadian newspapers in which I'd expect his coverage to be strongest — but I did find two full-on profiles of him, including an actual article about his death, in The Globe and Mail (which is Canada's main national newspaper of record, for the outsiders who aren't familiar with it) and some coverage of the award he won. I've added them to the article accordingly; as you can see, the obit in particular allowed me to fatten it up quite a bit with the fact that he was also a writer and a musician. I think there's enough here now, although I'd still like to dig into an archive of The Telegram if anybody has access to one. Keep per improvements, although I'm amenable to a disambiguation move to reflect the fact that he probably isn't notable enough to claim WP:PRIMARYTOPIC rights for the undabbed title. Bearcat (talk) 17:06, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article has been completely re-written to exclude all incorrect attributions to another actor of the same name and is now well referenced and appears to pass the WP:GNG Theroadislong (talk) 17:13, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good work, Bearcat and Theroadislong. I guess with the newspaper obituary you found, plus the award and the references to his Shakespeare work, we could give the topic a pass; I'd be willing to retract the nom and say weak keep. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:38, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, based on the improvements and the sources located. The best course for this article right now is improvement and expansion, not deletion. —C.Fred (talk) 19:07, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per rewrite article now clearly passes WP:GNG. --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 01:23, 19 December 2015 (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.