Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Layne Harper

In this article, we will explore and analyze in detail the topic of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Layne Harper, which has been the subject of interest and research over the years. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Layne Harper is a topic that has sparked debate in various areas and fields, from science to politics, including culture and society in general. Over the decades, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Layne Harper has evolved and taken on new dimensions, prompting continued interest in understanding its implications and consequences. In this sense, it is crucial to critically examine the various perspectives and approaches related to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Layne Harper, in order to deepen our understanding and generate a constructive debate around this topic.
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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:19, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Layne Harper (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)

Highly advertorialized (to the point that I strongly suspect WP:AUTOBIO even though I can't prove it) WP:BLP of an actor and musician, not properly sourced as passing notability criteria for actors or musicians. As always, actors and musicians are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to show evidence that they would pass WP:GNG on third-party reliable source coverage about them -- but this is referenced almost entirely to directory entries that are not support for notability at all, with the only semi-reliable source being a Q&A interview in which he's talking about himself in the first person (which would be acceptable for use if the other sourcing around it were better, but does not get him over GNG in and of itself if it's the strongest source in the mix, per WP:INTERVIEWS).
And further, the claimed "breakthrough" is a bit part as a supporting character (unnamed in the provided source) in a film that's still about a year away from release, which is obviously not the kind of role that can clinch an automatic free pass over NACTOR without adequate sourcing.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt this article from having to cite much better sourcing, or from having to have a much more neutral and objective writing tone, than this. Bearcat (talk) 23:57, 23 July 2024 (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.