Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ray Galletti

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. MBisanz ^talk 01:32, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Galletti

Ray Galletti (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)

Zero reliable sources or evidence of notability. Prod removed on completely spurious grounds. —swpb^T 13:00, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —swpb^T 13:09, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —swpb^T 13:09, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:49, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

To editor

WP:PROD says at all. It suggests a policy stance that does not exist, and never has. —swpb^T 17:08, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

• • Further comment with irony I along with another editor at Montanabbw's talk page suggest you
    WP:DROPTHESTICK. Secondly note to all participants in this AFD- The editor who nominated this article for deletion originally wrote[1] 'Zero sources or evidence of notability' not Zero reliable sources or evidence of notability. This AFD 'doesn't reflect what' it was when it was created. It isn't proper wikipedia etiquette (If not policy too but I'm not absolutely certain) to edit a post once someone has replied to it except under certain limited conditions....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:50, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]

• Delete Doesn't pass
  WP:GNG. Even if his role in Arrow is considered significant (which it's not, since it was a one-off appearance), that's only one role and NACTOR calls for several. He had recurring appearances in TV shows Connected, Saints & Sinners, and Desire, but I can't determine if they were particularly notable roles. Additionally, almost all references to him I can find online are cast listings or synopses of works he's been in, nothing to show actual notability. clpo13_(talk) 18:28, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • To expand on the three TV shows I mentioned earlier: Saints & Sinners and Desire were canceled before airing all of their episodes (Saints & Sinners, for instance, looks like it aired 22 out of 62 total, based on information at TV.com and IMDb). Both shows were also a product of MyNetworkTV, whose scripted shows flopped so bad that they quit the original programming business entirely. Connected looks promising (since he was the lead, according to IMDb), but I have found absolutely no information on it, even when filtering out Morgan Spurlock's show of the same name. The same problem exists for Saints & Sinners, which shares a name with a more recent show. It's almost impossible to show that Galletti had significant roles on these shows when I can hardly find any information on the shows themselves. clpo13_(talk) 23:06, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per
  WP:NPOSSIBLE - remember this article is just a fortnight old. --RexxS (talk) 22:40, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Sources provided are not ideal but provide adequate number of credits to pass WP:GNG. Montanabw^(talk) 03:37, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No number of credits confers an automatic GNG pass because listed — GNG is a measure of the quality of sourcing that can or cannot be provided to support the article, not of what the article says. Bearcat (talk) 21:44, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per RexxS & MontanaBW. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:54, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete RexxS uses the guideline quote:
  "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, ..." and lists the shows this actor has been in as proof of notability. But the guideline states significant roles. Everything that this guy has been in, besides "Connected" has been background roles, even the shows where he's appeared multiple times. "Connected" is not a notable show, as I cannot find anything outside of its IMDB listing on Google, so that doesn't meet the multiple notable films, television shows provision of the guideline either. Valeince (talk) 20:52, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete.
  reliable source coverage in media for the playing and the majorness of those roles. But nothing written or sourced here shows that at all. Bearcat (talk) 19:13, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete and Salt Fails to establish any notability whatsoever.
  WP:GNG not asserted. Also IMDB is generally not a reliable source, per Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites#IMDb. Scope creep (talk) 12:13, 21 August 2016 (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.