Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hugh Walters (actor)


 * 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. even though no additional comments were made during the first relisting, I feel this can be closed, because, in essence, the deletion reason given was that he is not famous. But our policy only requires notability, not the much rarer quality of famous.  DGG ( talk ) 04:46, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Hugh Walters (actor)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Someone believes that the article meets WP:ACTOR standards. To me this article's significance of acting career is into question. I read the IMDB records, and I could not figure out how and why this actor is notable. Usually, his roles are small-time, even when his roles are big to some works. I nominated it under WP:PROD, and it was contested. The article's entry desires to be re-written: there are too many Wikilinks, the format is prose, and there is no personal life. Is he married, single, or committed? Gh87 (talk) 20:28, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep While this isn't a great article, and Hugh Walters isn't the most famous actor in the world, he has had multiple appearances in a multitude of British TV programmes and films, many of which are quite famous or cult productions. Therefore, I would hazard to suggest that he meets the criteria of WP:NACTOR; note that there are plenty of wikilinks to his page. A google image search provides a recognisable face from these productions. Essentially, I don't see any harm in this article existing, and should some biographical information be found, all the better. Bob talk 19:32, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I second all of Bob's reasons. Just because an article needs improving should not automatically qualify it for deletion. I don't find anything in the MoS for bios that states that there must be a personal life section. Indeed with the sourcing and NPOV violation problems it can be an asset to not have them. MarnetteD | Talk 15:55, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:35, 15 September 2011 (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.