- 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. Sandstein 16:41, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Frank Pando (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:NACTOR with apparently only one notable role rather than the multiple ones called for, and subject apparently requests deletion (see the Talk page), which should give a lean in a marginal case. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:45, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and United States of America. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:11, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- Delete, this isn't even a marginal case. The history of the article shows it has been problematic from the start, it has been unsourced since it was first created in 2011, and the few citations added in November 2024 do not demonstrate that this BLP is notable. Passing mentions in a book, a newspaper article and ScreenRant are not significant coverage. It doesn't even pass WP:BASIC - People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. And WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE applies as well. If editors think his name is a valid search term, then it could be re-directed to List of The Sopranos characters, where his recurring character Agent Frank Grasso redirects to. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:10, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- Just to note the problematic basis: creating user was blocked less than a year after this article's 2011 creation. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 20:14, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- Delete due to the lack of significant coverage (as opposed to passing mentions) in reliable sources. The subject's wishes alone are not enough, but are certainly a factor when notability is not well established. Cullen328 (talk) 20:17, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: Clear failure of NACTOR and GNG. Noah 💬 22:17, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator. This subject fails WP:NACTOR. He also lacks WP:SIGCOV for WP:GNG. JFHJr (㊟) 22:19, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- Delete I agree with the points above. The article is poorly sourced, and it does not appear to meet the notability guidelines.Svenska356 (talk) 22:59, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed. 23.158.16.24 (talk) 07:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- 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.