Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danny Mann

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:07, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Mann (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)

A non notable actor. Deprodded by an anonymous editor with no explanation and no sources added Cardiffbear88 (talk) 16:50, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 16:50, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 16:50, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 16:50, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 16:50, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 16:50, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I added a source from Google books and changed a tag on the page accordingly. I'm seeing some red carpet interviews on YouTube, but nothing of not in Proquest. Still need to check various newspaper sources. He's been in many notable productions, but there may not be much reliable biographical coverage. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 17:34, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the added sourcing is not enough to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:11, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The issue with voice-actors, no matter how prolifically they work—and the subject has done a huge amount of work, which easily passes WP:NACTOR, in my opinion—is that there is generally relatively little coverage of them in news outlets. However, newspapers.com is providing hundreds and hundreds of hits for the subject, with more than just passing mentions. I am going through them now and will apply to have some of the better sources clipped. Dflaw4 (talk) 11:29, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Here are some sources: [1][2][3][4][5]. They are not hugely in-depth, but, in combination with what DiamondRemley39 found, I think there's enough to justify an article. I can also apply for more sources if necessary. Dflaw4 (talk) 21:37, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unfortunately, the sourcing—extant or otherwise—does not sufficiently attest to the depth or persistency of coverage needed to meet WP:BLPSOURCE or GNG. The sources presented rely overly on passing mentions to do so. serial ^# 08:56, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep or move to draft as per the reliable book source and newspaper mentions, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:30, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I would agree that these sources don’t do much to indicate notability in my view as they are passing mentions - there’s nothing we could reliably create an article from. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 00:13, 18 May 2020 (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.