Knowledge

:Articles for deletion/Thomas James Longley - Knowledge

Source 📝

246:
Before was followed. I have actually been checking all these articles today and suspect major conflict of interest and puppetry going with these pages. The movie and none of the actors in them appear to pass notability and many of the articles seem to be created by users with similar editing styles
392:
While the subject of the article is not yet famous, that's not the only criteria for notability. His roles in his (somewhat) limited repertoire have been sufficient to be noted in press articles in Sneak Peek, The Movie Pool, Horror Asylum amongst others. One article, noting his dropping OUT of a
325:. I'm assuming that the 2004 Times article is more substantial and direct, as it is cited as directly praising the subject. If this is the case, this probably is enough to constitute notability alongside the other sources. 179: 265: 173: 134: 139: 107: 102: 111: 247:
and patterns, some of whom have been blocked from editing. If have a real reason why the article should be kept you are welcome to comment.
94: 194: 161: 71: 17: 393:
film produced a news article, so I don't think notability can really be the argument for deletion. He clearly passes
155: 57: 410: 384: 363: 334: 309: 279: 256: 237: 219: 76: 429: 151: 98: 40: 201: 425: 359: 305: 36: 90: 82: 380: 187: 66: 167: 252: 215: 406: 275: 233: 29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
424:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
355: 344: 330: 301: 290: 394: 61: 376: 248: 211: 53: 402: 322: 271: 229: 128: 398: 326: 347:
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
293:
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
321:. Many references, although most are either trivial or of uncertain 418:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
228:- Has WP:BEFORE been followed? What did the nominator find? 397:
and given the coverage in reliable sources, seems to pass
266:
list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions
124: 120: 116: 186: 354:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 300:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 375:The BBC ref and the Times article seem to satisfy 43:). No further edits should be made to this page. 432:). No further edits should be made to this page. 200: 8: 264:Note: This debate has been included in the 263: 7: 24: 18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion 1: 449: 77:00:50, 11 June 2012 (UTC) 421:Please do not modify it. 411:02:23, 5 June 2012 (UTC) 385:06:33, 4 June 2012 (UTC) 364:00:02, 4 June 2012 (UTC) 335:18:26, 28 May 2012 (UTC) 310:00:04, 28 May 2012 (UTC) 280:13:49, 21 May 2012 (UTC) 257:01:10, 21 May 2012 (UTC) 238:00:56, 21 May 2012 (UTC) 220:00:42, 21 May 2012 (UTC) 32:Please do not modify it. 91:Thomas James Longley 83:Thomas James Longley 210:Non-notable actor. 48:The result was 366: 312: 282: 269: 58:non-admin closure 440: 423: 353: 349: 299: 295: 270: 205: 204: 190: 142: 132: 114: 74: 69: 64: 34: 448: 447: 443: 442: 441: 439: 438: 437: 436: 430:deletion review 419: 381:William Thweatt 342: 288: 147: 138: 105: 89: 86: 72: 67: 62: 41:deletion review 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 446: 444: 435: 434: 414: 413: 387: 369: 368: 367: 351: 350: 339: 338: 337: 315: 314: 313: 297: 296: 285: 284: 283: 261: 260: 259: 241: 240: 208: 207: 144: 85: 80: 46: 45: 25: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 445: 433: 431: 427: 422: 416: 415: 412: 408: 404: 400: 396: 391: 388: 386: 382: 378: 374: 371: 370: 365: 361: 357: 352: 348: 346: 341: 340: 336: 332: 328: 324: 320: 317: 316: 311: 307: 303: 298: 294: 292: 287: 286: 281: 277: 273: 267: 262: 258: 254: 250: 245: 244: 243: 242: 239: 235: 231: 227: 224: 223: 222: 221: 217: 213: 203: 199: 196: 193: 189: 185: 181: 178: 175: 172: 169: 166: 163: 160: 157: 153: 150: 149:Find sources: 145: 141: 136: 130: 126: 122: 118: 113: 109: 104: 100: 96: 92: 88: 87: 84: 81: 79: 78: 75: 70: 65: 59: 55: 51: 44: 42: 38: 33: 27: 26: 19: 420: 417: 389: 372: 343: 318: 289: 225: 209: 197: 191: 183: 176: 170: 164: 158: 148: 49: 47: 31: 28: 356:Ron Ritzman 323:reliability 302:Ron Ritzman 174:free images 401:as well. 426:talk page 319:Weak keep 272:• Gene93k 37:talk page 428:or in a 395:WP:BASIC 345:Relisted 291:Relisted 249:Ridernyc 212:Ridernyc 135:View log 39:or in a 403:Vertium 230:Carrite 226:Comment 180:WP refs 168:scholar 108:protect 103:history 377:WP:ENT 327:JulesH 152:Google 112:delete 54:WP:ENT 52:. per 195:JSTOR 156:books 140:Stats 129:views 121:watch 117:links 16:< 407:talk 399:WP:N 390:Keep 373:Keep 360:talk 331:talk 306:talk 276:talk 253:talk 234:talk 216:talk 188:FENS 162:news 125:logs 99:talk 95:edit 60:)  — 50:keep 383:| 202:TWL 137:• 133:– ( 73:Lum 68:Sat 63:Hue 409:) 379:-- 362:) 333:) 308:) 278:) 268:. 255:) 236:) 218:) 182:) 127:| 123:| 119:| 115:| 110:| 106:| 101:| 97:| 405:( 358:( 329:( 304:( 274:( 251:( 232:( 214:( 206:) 198:· 192:· 184:· 177:· 171:· 165:· 159:· 154:( 146:( 143:) 131:) 93:( 56:(

Index

Knowledge:Articles for deletion
talk page
deletion review
WP:ENT
non-admin closure
Hue
Sat
Lum
00:50, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Thomas James Longley
Thomas James Longley
edit
talk
history
protect
delete
links
watch
logs
views
View log
Stats
Google
books
news
scholar
free images
WP refs
FENS
JSTOR

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.