Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zack Bennett

: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 Jclemens (talk) 07:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

=[[Zack Bennett]]=

:{{la|Zack Bennett}} ([{{fullurl:Zack Bennett|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zack Bennett}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

Not notable: most significant role was in an non-notble production. No independent sources, only source is site for non-notable web series. Disputed prod. SummerPhD (talk) 14:02, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:07, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 25 July 2009 (UTC){{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zack Bennett||}}

Delete nn. JJL (talk) 03:27, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Keep. Starring role in a film which, however liitle viewed, has a high IMDB rating. Creator, star, writer, producer of web series which appears popular and decent for the genre: [http://news.tubefilter.tv/2009/06/23/poor-paul-and-his-roommates-back-for-second-season/]. Although web series may be in their infancy, I'm not convinced they should be dismissed out of hand. For me this subject meets notability. Softlavender (talk) 10:22, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Delete. For me it does not meet notability, and doesn't meet WP:N. I can also create, star, write and produce a web series that nobody watches, that does not make it notable. I think take WP:CRYSTAL here. SimonTrew (talk) 12:09, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Delete. A high IMDB rating can suggest a person or production may be notable, but in this case there seems to be absolutely no substantial reliable-source coverage to back that suggestion up and comply with WP:N. ~ mazca ^talk 17:22, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Delete: All that I can find is trivial mentions. Fails WP:BIO. Joe Chill (talk) 19:34, 26 July 2009 (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.