Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael McCormick (actor)

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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:49, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Michael McCormick (actor)

[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)

Long career, but no coverage in any sources found. Not seeing GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 03:18, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 03:18, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:09, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He is currently on Broadway in A Beautiful Noise (musical). He played John Adams on Broadway in 1776, Oscar in Curtains, and The Wizard of Oz in Wicked, among other roles. He played Max and Thénardier in national tours of The Producers and Les Miserables, and several leading roles at The Muny, which is a major regional theatre. Plus, he has guested on a couple of dozen TV shows. I don't think there's a good reason to delete, although the referencing and prose obviously needs an upgrade. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:47, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 17:36, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to the number/importance of roles likely meeting WP:NACTOR #1, here are some sources found via newspapers.com that provide coverage, biographic details, and positive reviews: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5] (and there are some more sources to be found in there!). Skynxnex (talk) 17:42, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above: there is enough significant coverage to justify the article. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 18:36, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep same reasons as above. Blueflash4 (talk) 19:01, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:20, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is sufficient WP:SIGCOV to satisfy WP:GNG, WP:NPERSON, and WP:NACTOR. Shawn Teller (talk) 01:34, 22 February 2023 (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.