Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barnard Hughes


 * 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 of the discussion was keep. If an article contains no information, it doesn't have to be deleted (losing whatever little we had), it just needs expansion. AfD is not a replacement for expand. Kimchi.sg 13:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Barnard Hughes
The article contains absolutely no information. In its current state, where all it says is that he was an actor, it would indicate that Barnard Hughes is not noteworthy enough to be listed on the notable deaths page. Evan Carlstrom 03:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Keep. It hasn't been expanded yet, but it will. He's a tony-award winner and an emmy-award winner. I don't know enough about him (other than face recognition and the fact that he played the old guy on Blossom) to expand the article without relying on obits and IMDB, but I think it'll expand in the upcoming days, the way a lot of thin articles do in the wake of the subject's death. Wencer 03:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. He is a notable actor having won both a Tony Award in Da and having played over 400 roles on Broadway . He also won an Emmy for an appearance on Lou Grant. He has starred in television shows such as Doc," "Mr. Merlin" and "The Cavanaughs," and played a recurring role on the series "Blossom." Capitalistroadster 03:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand, indeed notable. AFD is not a cleanup tag. Lose the current event tag, though. --Core des at talk. o.o;; 04:20, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Obvious Keep. Great actor. I loved his work (though Mr. Merlin was absolute crap). Fan-1967 04:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Definite keep - the article will definitely be expanded; it is a shame it hasn't been done as of yet because he was a seminal actor on stage, film and TV. I am updating it right now!!Ciociabasia 04:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Painfully obvious keep. A major figure in acting. Jokestress 05:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep definitely. Notable enough for an entry, and it's been expanded to an acceptable standard. Rossrs 08:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep as per above. Dionyseus 09:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Very Strong Keep. He is ABSOLUTELY notable and was a major character actor with many movie credits in the 1970's. This really borders on a bad faith nomination. mikemoto 11:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Definitely Keep and Expand His acting credibility is enough that it should expand very rapidly. I'm surprised it hasn't already.  One thing I did note that I was going to add myself was the original list of his movies did not include Doc Hollywood (1991) or Sister Act 2: Back in the Habit, both of which were supporting roles, but very crucial roles. →  --AthosMR 12:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep definitely; an acclaimed and very prolific actor. --Disappointedkid 12:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Definitely keep, per the comments above. Actors who are less prolific are certainly considered notable, so why wouldn't Hughes be? Spicy 13:04, 12 July 2006 (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.