Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ronn Lucas

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 Keep as this seems notable and acceptable for now (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 01:20, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ronn Lucas

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a notable person Curro2 (talk) 23:06, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:57, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:57, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep – The subject easily passes WP:BASIC. Source examples include, but are not limited to: , , , , , , , , , . See also point D of WP:BEFORE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:02, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

He is not notable. I see nothing notable about him. Delete. Curro2 (talk) 14:48, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We know you believe that he is not notable. Please provide more reasoning than a basic assertion of your belief. Lithorien (talk) 15:46, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep based on the sources provided by North America. Passes WP:BASIC. Lithorien (talk) 15:46, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep - clearly, per Northamerica1000 - would have closed it myself, but unsure if that was appropriate for a NAC. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:40, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - I concur with Northamerica1000. Lucas had his own Disney Channel special, and was the creator of a sitcom (albeit one that flopped after a few episodes). Though not as well known as Edgar Bergen or Jeff Dunham, he is regarded as one of the best by other ventriloquists. I'd say that's pretty notable. mwalimu59 (talk) 19:06, 2 January 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.