Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill Switzer

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.

Bill Switzer

Bill Switzer (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)

Non notable voice actor, sourced only with IMDb.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 05:21, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 05:21, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 05:21, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 05:21, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 05:21, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as notable as he meets
  talk) 12:03, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• WP:NACTOR means nothing without reliable sources to back up, of which IMDb is not one. I have yet to find reliable, substantial, independent sources from Google Books, I don’t see anything in the sources you’ve added. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 12:09, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Yet again, it's not a question of good faith but of competency. See

talk) 13:05, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

DiamondRemley39 OK - specifics - the two Google Books sources you’ve added, in my view, do not demonstrate substantial, reliable coverage, and I don’t understand how you expect me to improve an article with them. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 13:35, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification. The coverage is reliable and serves to verify some of what is in the article. That's why I added them. I don't expect you to do anything to improve the article with them as the work is done. I found it easy enough to add these and remove the unsourced tag, improving it in a small increment.

talk) 13:49, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

The significant coverage is in the four articles I've added so far.

talk) 13:51, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

WP:BEFORE, so I wondered if you’d like to take this opportunity to rephrase your first comments about IMDB, about my nom statement, and about “precision”? Cardiffbear88 (talk) 16:17, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

I'll take an opportunity again to try to help you understand the problem with the nom, though we are beating the dead horse: in the BEFORE process you should have seen IMDb, which had those multiple roles and awards mentioned meeting

talk) 16:20, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

I’m not going to take any notice of IMDb when it’s a deprecated source. So no it doesn’t help. Ceasing this conversation. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 16:24, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Added some sources.
  talk) 12:04, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per the sources added by DiamondRemley39, which demonstrate notability. — Toughpigs (talk) 16:06, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per the multiple reliable sources added to the article as per
  WP:HEY so that deletion is no longer necessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:48, 2 August 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.