Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brad Harris


 * 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. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 02:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Brad Harris

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable stuntman plus other various roles within the movie-making industry. No major awards. Doesn't meet WP:BIO. CSD declined but no reason given although there is no assertion of notability.  Web H amster  07:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete without prejudice to recreation if created with notable sources. But, it's impossible to tell since nothing really implies notability in the article. gren グレン 09:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions.   -- the wub  "?!"  13:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep due to acronym laden nomination, I can't appreciate the reason why it should be removed (see also: avoid cryptic language) Tarinth (talk) 21:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * "laden"? I used 2 acronyms one of which is linked to its definition. Regardless this is not a relevant argument at AfD.-- Web H amster  05:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep as I am puzzled by one person considering deletion of an actor with a lengthy film resume who was a major star of 1960's European cinema that was also well known on American drive-in/exploitation cinema and movies released to American television. The article seems to be of the right length (e.e much, much shorter than Wikiepdia's entry on 'The Dukes of Hazzard') to explain his identity and some of his films.Foofbun (talk) 23:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:N and WP:BIO see what the criteria is for inclusion of a living person into Wikipedia. You will find that a "lengthy resume" of less than stellar roles/functions is not a particularly persuasive argument. Throw in a few Oscars, Emmys, Razzberries etc and you may be in with a chance. Likewise a collection of "non-trivial and substantial" articles in 3rd party publications that are deemed by WP to be reliable sources would be another way of achieving it. Please remember that this is an encyclopaedia, it isn't a user written replacement for IMDb or Variety classifieds. -- Web H amster  05:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks WebHamster; to quote your guidelines 'Actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and television personalities:'

1)With significant roles in notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions.

2)Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.

3)Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.

With the first and third I believe Mr Harris fits these things (and as a result would have number two) due to his surviving and being prolific in a variety of European genres, for example one of the few to do leading roles in sword and sandal, then Eurospy, then spaghetti westerns and Eurohorror whilst many actors only succeed or are reknown in one.

Wikipedia often correctly points out many articles have only an American basis, yet the European cinema of the 60's had worldwide popularity. He also had a recurring role in an American soap that Wikipedia has quite a lengthy piece on, so therefore I cannot see how you personally feel that he doesn't comply with the given criteria.

With regards to the point about having significant works (which I presume means "books") about him as a person, the 'cult' following would usually recognise him and write things on their own web sites available on the internet that I would not choose to quote for the article. We have to admit that many things like Wikipedia and other online sources of information can not be taken less seriously merely because you cannot hold a bound copy in your hand.

I am also amazed at the rapid response to the article as I must have wrote it only hours before you posted your remarks. Thank you.Foofbun (talk) 07:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * All you now have to do is demonstrate that is the case with verifiable and reliable sources and then demonstrate it to those involved in this AfD. Please don't think of this as being a personal issue. I don't have a strong feeling either way. If you can demonstrate that Mr Harris meets the criteria then I will be delighted and WP will have one more article. If you can't then there won't be an article and people can get their info from IMDb either way is okay by me. Having said that though currently the article doesn't demonstrate any of the needed criteria. Please also remember this is about him in particular, not about the films he's been in. The references must relate directly and specifically to him, not just a few lines in an article about something else he was involved in. As for the speed, well that comes under the heading of new page patrolling. -- Web H amster  07:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you WebHamster, and I agree, nothing personal here, I appreciate your thoughts and courtesy. I guess we'll have to disagree on our views on him meeting those three criteria, I'm rather worried that many 60's films and genres are heading towards oblivion.  Here in Oz we see all sorts of documentaries on the 50's that seem to imply that it only concerned James Dean, Monty Clift, and Marilyn Monroe!  I've a friend trying to get a book on director Michael Curtiz published with major publishers telling him that Mr Curtiz is too obscure!  I think your Wikipedia gives a suitable amount of information at a glance with a chance to go to External links or the book references for more detail for the interested party.  Thanks againFoofbun (talk) 22:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. An individual with an extensive career across a number of different roles (stuntman, stunt coordinator, actor) seems to me to meet WP:N, even if no one of those is sufficient in and of itself. Bondegezou (talk) 16:22, 29 January 2008 (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.