Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harold Eric


 * 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. Disregarding input by CanadianBBQ who has been blocked for UPE.  Sandstein  11:38, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Harold Eric

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Insufficiently notable performer allegedly "best known for his recurring role as Scotty in the HBO Max series Search Party", a part so insignificant that it is not even mentioned in the Search Party (TV series) article. Also, IMDB does not list it as recurring so even this could be an exaggeration. He has won a high school theatre award, met some famous people and worked in some famous places. That's not enough. Notability is not inherited. This seems to be promotional. DanielRigal (talk) 16:29, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. DanielRigal (talk) 16:29, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. DanielRigal (talk) 16:29, 21 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete. No evidence of notability whatsoever, seems to have had a few minor uncredited roles. No coverage in reliable sources, so fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. 192.76.8.82 (talk) 17:59, 21 October 2020 (UTC)


 * As a direct response to the above comment:


 * A primary, very reasonable justification for this article stems in large part from the verified, credited, notable, and widely-viewed recurring role in Search Party (HBO Max). The suggestion that the actor only has several “uncredited” roles is incorrect, as the Search Party appearance is credited on IMDb.


 * The article in its current form contains several reliable sources, including the New York Daily News, MSN (aggregated), and others. Regarding the New York Daily News, I certainly wouldn’t call a renowned paper founded in 1919, and with a daily distribution of 200,000+ physical newspapers, "not reliable.” The actor also has 10+ Brazil-based publications because of the actor’s following in the country. However, these articles are all in Portuguese and are thus irrelevant for the purposes of this article.


 * To speak directly to WP:NACTOR, this article actually adheres perfectly to point number two in these guidelines, which reads, “Has a large fan base or a significant ‘cult’ following.” After the actor’s appearance in Search Party, which aired in June 2020, he has amassed 32,000+ Instagram followers, and has become verified on Facebook and TikTok. If these massive tech companies were able to identify this actor’s public figure status and subsequently verify the individual based on his large following — indicating on their platforms that they have deemed this individual to be noteworthy and deserving of verification — then surely Wikipedia can uphold this article. I do not see how this is a stretch in the slightest, and I am genuinely surprised by the opposition here. Regarding WP:NACTOR, this article passes with flying colors. --Derekbeagle (talk) 01:01, 22 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep: The role they have called into question is a two-episode recurring role in a major television series on HBO Max. The credited episode is the episode in which the character is most featured and spoken to by name, whereas there are no credits simply for other "appearances" elsewhere in the season. Moreover, the official series Instagram profile, which follows the cast and creative team, does, in fact, follow Harold Eric. Does this matter? No. But because the argument for deletion calls into question the validity of the role/involvement as being "so insignificant," this is nonetheless further evidence that the involvement was notable. Furthermore, the series features Harold Eric in its own advertisements, as well as on its Instagram page, which is yet another clear indication of the actor's notable involvement.


 * Regarding the "high school theatre award," this scrutinization is unwarranted, and the manner in which this argument is presented is dismissive. One need only Google "Jimmy Awards" to see the noteworthiness of this event beyond being just some "high school theatre award" in the United States theatre industry. In fact, PBS produced a television series titled Broadway or Bust specifically about this event. This nomination was no small feat. Furthermore, the New York Daily News published a full feature on Harold Eric in 2013 regarding this event, which should underscore the fact that this event is far from insignificant.


 * Regarding this being "promotional," the user calling for deletion marked the article for concerns about "tone," which were addressed in an earlier revision to avoid any concerns about this being promotional. However, this was apparently not enough for the user. Despite that, this is written in an objective and straightforward manner, regardless of what anyone could feel about noteworthiness.


 * Likewise, the claim that the subject "met some famous people and worked in some famous places" is an unfair and, frankly, dismissive characterization of the work. Wikipedia is intended to be straightforward with details and information, and the fact of the matter is the subject shared stages and studios with countless stars, specifically as a backup singer for live performances and albums. As indicated in the listing, the subject performed at Elton John 60, among other major concerts and events, which was a sold-out, record-breaking event at Madison Square Garden. However, highlighting every event and the work/process involved is not appropriate for an article, and in its current state, this information is presented in a direct manner.


 * As stated in a prior revision on the page, the credentials and noteworthiness of the subject in question were deemed sufficient by both Facebook and TikTok in recent weeks, such that both platforms – through their independent verification teams – verified Harold Eric based on his credibility as a public figure. The profiles have been hyperlinked in this paragraph as proof. If a blue check was warranted for this independently reviewed and validated public figure, who also boasts over 30,000 Instagram followers, I do not understand why this page would be considered unjustified. As mentioned in a reply to an earlier vote, this speaks directly to WP:NACTOR, and this article actually adheres perfectly to point number two in these guidelines, which reads, “Has a large fan base or a significant ‘cult’ following.” After the actor’s appearance in Search Party, which aired in June 2020, he has amassed 32,000+ Instagram followers, and has become verified on Facebook and TikTok. If these massive tech companies were able to identify this actor’s public figure status and subsequently verify the individual based on his large following — indicating on their platforms that they have deemed this individual to be noteworthy and deserving of verification — then surely Wikipedia can uphold this article. I do not see how this is a stretch in the slightest, and I am genuinely surprised by the opposition here. Regarding WP:NACTOR, this article passes with flying colors.


 * As if this deletion form was not enough of an inquiry into the matter, the user DanielRigal, who initiated this deletion form, just opened a Sockpuppet investigation into the profile that originally created this listing, CanadianBBQ, questioning a connection to my account. The SPI clerk will undoubtedly determine that there are no duplicate accounts or any wrongdoing whatsoever. I mention this because based on DanielRigal's incessant revision history on this listing (and determination to see this listing deleted), I am very concerned that there is more at play than just a concern about notability. I do not personally know the user "CanadianBBQ" (the originator of this listing). However, DanielRigal's history indicates a clear pattern of actively taking down any listing that the "CanadianBBQ" user posts, and I am concerned that DanialRigal is unjustly attempting to delete this page solely based on its origins from another user, as opposed to its merits and the information presented. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Derekbeagle (talk • contribs) 18:22, 21 October 2020 (UTC)


 * There is one accusation buried in all that verbiage that is slightly true. I did indeed discover this article because I had already noticed that its original creator had made some misguided, possibly promotional, articles and I was checking up on what else they had done to see if there was a general pattern there. So, now that I have answered it, let me turn that question around on you. How did you find this article approximately three hours after it was created and one hour after registering your account? I mean, it is an orphan article. You didn't follow a link to it. How did you even know it existed? --DanielRigal (talk) 18:43, 21 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I was sent an unsolicited link to it, and in the interest of ensuring that all information was accurate, appropriate, and properly sourced for a Wikipedia article (long-time reader, first-time writer here), made adjustments thereafter. I have no connection to, nor any relationship with, the originator of the article, and based on the merits of this article, I do believe it should remain active. That being said, I do commend you for your commitment to upholding Wikipedia's integrity in articles. --Derekbeagle (talk) 19:05, 21 October 2020 (UTC)


 * So, to be clear per our policies on WP:COI disclosure you are declaring that you have no relationship whatsoever to Harold Eric Theurer. You do not know him in a personal or professional manner and have no external relationship with him whatsoever. In this case a professional relationship would also include doing any professional work alongside him, e.g. appearing alongside side him in a tv show or commercial, or performing alongside him in a music production.
 * You claim that you were sent an unsolicited link to the article, which sounds to me to be a lot like WP:MEAT. At the point you started editing the article it had been in existence for only a couple of hours, had no incoming links and would not have even been indexed by search engines. Were you sent the link to the article by anyone who may have a conflict of interest with Harold Eric Theurer, e.g. Harold Eric Theurer himself, his friends or family or his agent? You do not have to give specific answers to these questions, a yes or no would be fine. 192.76.8.82 (talk) 00:48, 23 October 2020 (UTC)


 * From the inception of this article, user DanielRigal challenged it. Despite my attempts to alter text and improve citations, the user launched a Sockpuppet investigation, and no wrongdoing was found. Apparently, this result wasn't sufficient for either of you, because now, as legitimate discussion about the merits (or lack thereof) of this article takes place on this page, which is specifically what this page is for, you are now throwing other accusations into the mix. Quite frankly, I would like to direct you to Wikipedia's Harassment Policy, as DanielRigal admitted that he targeted the article originally based on a personal determination to investigate the originator, and based on the policy which refers to "intentionally target[ing] a specific person or persons," this activity is questionable. Moreover, these actions by DanielRigal and you are specifically "mak[ing] editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target," and "undermine[ing], frighten[ing], [and] discourage[ing] them [me] from editing." This may not be your intention, but it is the effect.


 * Moreover, you have made an accusation about the subject of this article on DanielRigal's Talk Page, specifically making the accusation that the subject of the article is conducting shady Wikipedia practices. This is incorrect, targeted, and unjust harassment that has been ongoing since the inception of this article. All further discussions should be based on the merits (or lack thereof) of this article. Rather than continue this targeted harassment and accusations, I strongly recommend that you allow the rest of the Wikipedia community to weigh their unbiased and independent thoughts and opinions on this article, as opposed to conducting your current process of leveling incorrect accusations and making personal attacks. This page is specifically for discussion about the merits of the article, and if the community deems it unfit, then that will be the proper outcome. The wrongful accusation process and line of questioning that DanielRigal began, and which you seem determined to continue, is wholly unjust.


 * Likewise, in good faith, I will ask you to remove the incorrect accusation you have listed on the aforementioned talk page, as not only is it untrue, but it verges on slander against the subject of the article.


 * I will not be entertaining any further questions, nor will I offer any further replies. Instead, I leave the fate of this article up to the community. Please allow the Wikipedia editor community to do their work, and refrain from any further accusations. --Derekbeagle (talk) 04:57, 23 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep: I make random articles of notable people and places and things that I find on the internet. I do not discriminate and I publish content based on the information that I am able to source from the internet. I've watched Harold Eric on television. Also, I would like to point this that I have no connection with user Derekbeagle. I appreciate the efforts put by everyone to build a platform like Wikipedia. I'm just another guy who like to read and write about random things. "In the long history of humankind (and animal kind, too) those who learned to collaborate and improvise most effectively have prevailed." - Charles Darwin — Preceding unsigned comment added by CanadianBBQ (talk • contribs) 00:28, 22 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete, with no prejudice against reviving the article in the future - Charitably, let's go with the too soon standard. The fact that the article keeps referring to the actor by his first name, and one of the voters above has done nothing in WP outside of this article, shows fan-style writing and possibly a personal connection. Supporters above have argued valiantly that WP:NACTOR has been satisfied, particularly the "significant cult following" requirement, but the number of Instagram followers is a useful measurement at Instagram, not here. Mr. Eric has indeed won some awards, but little evidence has been presented for whether those awards are notable in themselves. Mr. Eric has received some minor coverage for bit parts but that does not satisfy the general notability requirement at WP:SIGCOV. If Mr. Eric racks up some more notable achievements, and if those receive reliable and significant coverage, he could qualify for a Wikipedia article in the future.  DOOMSDAYER 520 | TALK | CONTRIBS 20:22, 22 October 2020 (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.