Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill Anagnos

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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:11, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Anagnos (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)

Unremarkable stuntman lacking non-trivial sourcing reddogsix (talk) 13:46, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 15:22, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 15:22, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 15:22, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 15:22, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as this seems somewhat obvious with no obvious better improvement. Pinging Onel5969. SwisterTwister talk 05:33, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep - While they clearly don't pass WP:NACTOR, nor meet WP:GNG (since I couldn't find any in-depth coverage), I feel they do pass WP:BASIC: If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. A search on Books returns dozens of mentions, showing his activity in the film industry, including this, which I feels satisfies the Basic requirement, that and his appearance in more than 170 films and television shows. Very poorly sourced, but I think an interested party could source this better. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:19, 23 October 2015 (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.