Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin Massey (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. Specific sources must be presented at AfD for consideration, per WP:THREE. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:41, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Massey

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Successful performer, but doesn't have the significance or coverage to meet WP:GNG or WP:ENT. NOTE: not ther same Kevin Massey as the last article, which was deleted at AfD. Boleyn (talk) 08:10, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:06, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:06, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:06, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I see 638 hits on a google news search. Did you check all of them? This article needs more referencing, but I think we could find sufficient media coverage if we looked. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:24, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:36, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are sufficient news coverage hits on google to pass GNG. Namkongville (talk) 15:18, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Number of hits is not an acceptable way of establishing notability, SIGCOV is. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 23:41, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:41, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ghits are not applicable at Afd. No indication of being notable. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 15:09, 30 August 2021 (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.