There are substantial procedural errors in the deletion discussion. The page was relisted twice on November 8, 2020 and November 16, 2020 to obtain further discussion and a clearer consensus. No further discussion was generated after more information was added to the page on November 17, 2020, and a clearer consensus was not achieved. AletheaJavon (talk) 02:13, 5 December 2020 (UTC) — AletheaJavon (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
Endorse There is nothing procedurally wrong with closing a discussion that has been re-listed but failed to attract more participants. It was re-listed twice and in total was up for 26 days, yet noone in the AfD ended up !voting keep. It could also have been closed as redirect but I think the closer's reasoning against is fair. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 08:30, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Allow Recreation More information was discovered to substantially add to this page, thus addressing comments in the original deletion discussion. There are recent articles from mainstream media, recent professional endorsements, and recent career history that is verifiable on legitimate websites. I can work to add this information to the page. MikeDmilib (talk) 09:46, 5 December 2020 (UTC) — MikeDmilib (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of AletheaJavon (talk • contribs). [reply]
Allow Recreation There is additional information to add to the page that was deleted. There are articles from the New York Times and other mainstream media sources. The subject also has notable work history on IMDb. The subject meets the notability for WP:ACTORWP:AUTHOR I can also update the page to reflect these additional sources and the unique contributions in their field. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AletheaJavon (talk • contribs) 09:59, 5 December 2020 (UTC) — AletheaJavon (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Allow Recreation EateWilkins raises a good point. Deleting one cast member's page while allowing the other cast members' pages appears biased. The archived deletion discussion also can be construed as biased, especially regarding a biography of a notable, living person. MikeDmilib (talk) 14:02, 5 December 2020 (UTC) — Duplicate vote:MikeDmilib (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:11, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse There are no problems with the close and the closer could not properly close the discussion any other way. Now, it is possible that the article could be sent back to draft space and go through the AFC process, but the close of the AFD is correct. --Enos733 (talk) 18:54, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is a bad-faith filing, as is shown by the sockpuppetry by the filer, but there isn't a speedy close criterion that applies. If there is any more sockpuppetry, the master should be banned (as opposed to blocked 2 weeks).
