Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tyler Alvarez

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. Claiming sources ought to exist is not an argument based in policy. There has been ample opportunity to put forward evidence of notability, but none has been forthcoming. No real benefit in keeping open any longer. SpinningSpark 17:58, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Alvarez

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

Poorly sourced article about a non-notable actor. The only sources are press releases, self-published sources, and closely connected sources. Fails all three criteria of WP:NACTOR. - Mr X 20:47, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I disagree with MrX's evaluation of Alvarez' notability and of the available sources. Given Alvarez' role in a major program on the Nickelodeon network, I suspect better sources are available if one looks hard enough. I found a number of interviews with Alvarez in independent sources. (Admittedly, these tend to be fan sites, but this was with just 2 minutes searching.) I have communicated with the article's author about the need for better sourcing. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:59, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:13, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's a bit of coverage, mainly interviews[1][2][3] but nothing very in-depth or authoritative. Doesn't meet WP:ACTOR: he has a reasonably big supporting role in one show, but WP:ACTOR requires multiple major roles or other distinctive achievements. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:44, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:32, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Relisting comment: I originally closed this as no consensus but the nom disagreed so relisted

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 11:23, 31 July 2014 (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.