Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leigh Scott (2nd nomination)

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. As no reliable sources have been provided which cover the subject significantly have been presented during this discussion, the article's subject is found to lack notability. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:41, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Leigh Scott (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)

There is no significant coverage to be found about this guy. He only worked for The Asylum, and all sources currently listed are primary sources and Facebook pages. edtiorEهեইдအီးËეεઈדוארई電子ಇអ៊ី전자ഇī😎 03:44, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bharatiya29 11:13, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as still questionable for WP:CREATIVE with no convincing signs of a better article. Notifying the only still active AfDers Hullaballoo Wolfowitz and Johnpacklambert. SwisterTwister talk 21:32, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep four refs from Dread Central which is a reliable source for horror film, he is quite a prolific contributor to the industry and deserves a small article.Atlantic306 (talk) 17:48, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I hate to break it to you, but reliable sources that only pass mention an actor's name in relation to a film doesn't count as significant coverage. Always remember, kids: Notability is not inherited. edtiorEهեইдအီးËეεઈדוארई電子ಇអ៊ី전자ഇī😎 21:21, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Not enough in-depth coverage from reliable, independent sources to show they pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:34, 2 March 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.