Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frank Harts


 * 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   no consensus. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica1000 01:35, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Frank Harts

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable actor. Prod was contested by article creator. -- Finngall  talk  03:48, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. The guy's got a regular role in a moderately significant TV show and has taken serious roles on Broadway. The deletion was originally proposed by an editor who has a history of being trigger-happy in his proposed deletions. I do agree that there are problems with the article as it stands, the main one being that it appears to have been started by an editor with a possible conflict of interest, at least if his name is anything to go by, but we should be able to tidy this up over time. It was easy for me to find independent references to this actor, and his current role suggests that he's notable enough (we have plenty of other articles about actors with regular roles in TV shows), so this strikes me as an easy "keep". RomanSpa (talk) 04:28, 5 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. Comment Currently fails actor notability criteria. Of the five references, three are to IMDB and therefore non-reliable while the other two do not mention Harts. There are a number of results returned by Google Search but these are mainly passing mentions of his appearance in 'A Raisin in the Sun'. Article would need complete new references before it can be considered for retention. Philg88 ♦talk 05:45, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: Changing comment to keep based on 's new sourcing. Philg88 ♦talk 08:59, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theater-related deletion discussions.  Philg88 ♦talk 05:46, 5 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Although the sources listed in the article are unreliable, sources do exist establishing his notability in some relatively decent roles. The article may need work, but the subject appears to me to meet WP:NACTOR.  ♥ Solarra ♥  ♪ 話 ♪  ߷  ♀ 投稿 ♀ 08:32, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete for failing NACTOR and WP:GNG. Solarra, those aren't even close to unbiased reliable sources: passing mentions in the book Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon: The Complete Guide to the Movie Trivia Game? a bio by the law firm who has him as a client? Clarityfiend (talk) 09:00, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment He really is on the borderline of notability I agree, but personally I feel there is just enough to warrant inclusion. ♥ Solarra ♥  ♪ 話 ♪  ߷  ♀ 投稿 ♀ 09:34, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:02, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:02, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. Interested editors may find it useful to read this conversation on the page creator's talk page. In short the editor is an authorized agent/manager of Frank Harts, but is not familiar with our way of doing things. I'd already mentioned that there was a possible COI above, but I feel that so long as the editor in question is simply providing the article with additional references on which we can base our decision here we don't need to be too worried. In any case the independent work of in providing additional references has already added additional weight to the article. RomanSpa (talk) 16:51, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. Hart's notability is indeed borderline but he is found in multiple independent sources and thereby, IMHO, warrants inclusion. COI aside, the more references that can be found the better. Philg88 ♦talk 19:09, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. Solarra, this last batch of "references" is no better than the first. A list of his credits and a passing mention in a book obviously don't qualify. As for the interview, I'm not overly impressed since it was conducted in a public library. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:48, 11 June 2014 (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.