Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sean Power (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. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 04:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Sean Power (actor)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Apparently non-notable actor, referenced only to his IMDB entry and the actor's own website. Checking his career against the criteria in WP:ENTERTAINER, the only possible match appears to be his role as Garth O'Hara in the Irish soap opera Fair City. The article claims that he was a "lead character" in Fair City, but Garth O'Hara is mentioned neither in the article Fair City or in the List of Fair City characters, so I see no evidence that Sean Power has "had significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, or other productions" or that he "Has a large fan base or a significant 'cult' following."

I have done a google news search for him, but the process is a little difficult because he shares the name of Seán Power (politician) (an Irish government minister) and a similarly-named major property-developer. However, a Google News search for "Sean Power" actor returns only 8 hits, none of which appear to amount to substantive coverage.

In the meantime, the article appears to being used for self-promotion by the actor himself (see this discussion on my talk page.). I have just removed a large chunk of unreferenced autobiographical material, which had been reinstated after I removed it before. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions.  -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions.  -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: Non-notable actor. Iowateen (talk) 02:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-notable and warn that re-insertion of deleted unreferenced material after warning is a form of vandalism and can result in banning. Drawn Some (talk) 04:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * comment was that a threat; is destubification vandalism? pohick (talk) 17:41, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No, destubification isn't vandalism but an editor with a conflict of interest re-inserting unsourced promotional material into a BLP after being warned is a vandal and should be blocked. Whether or not someone considers enforcement of policy threatening depends on their viewpoint of it I guess. Drawn Some (talk) 10:30, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Easier to look over the removed material and take the assertions one-by-one... source them and then put them back, as I have begun to do. Lots with which to work, and sourcing answers all concerns of questioned viability.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 04:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * i agree, however stern talk of banning might be better done on a user page, rather than AfD, where it might appear as a deterrant to article improvement. pohick (talk) 15:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Does not currently meet guidelines for inclusion. decltype (talk) 09:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * STRONG Keep. Its sad to opinine delete because something is difficult to reference, but the search for WP:V is a satizfying way to improve the project. And again, bad that an inexperienced editor does not understand COI of ADVERT, but those are perhaps reasons to suugest adoption. Now, I had not looked at the earlier versons, wanting nothing to modify my opinion... but unmentioned by the nom is his being a co-star in all 21 episodes of the popular BBC comedy Lead Balloon, which  meet the inclusion requirements of WP:ENTERTAINER as being a significant role in a notable television series. If the article is being subject to spamming, that is a matter for cleanup or maybe protection... not deletion. Searching for his name in relation to Lead Balloon was more successful. Mentions certainly, but sources only need to be non-trivial when the mere existence of these sources is used to establish notability. That's not the case here. The claim to be one of the stars of Lead Balloon is a claim to notability here and it ease easily verifiable... and significant appearance in a notable series speaks for itself.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 08:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * And now... after taking a look at some of the earlier versions, I can understand the nom's bringing it here. However, there were many specific assertions made in earlier versions... such being the creator of an accalimed theatre production for instance, that may be sourcable. Its late here and I will not be able to return to the article for about 18 hours... but I think it is one that can be further expanded and be a worthy inclusion to Wiki. Just a matter of checking through earlier versions and properly sourcing the other assertions.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 08:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep His role in lead balloon satisfies notability. --neon white talk 09:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as per Neon white. No fans of Lead Baloon here then! Snappy (talk) 00:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:ENTERTAINER requires "significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, or other productions". One notable role does not meet this criteria.  The article also appears to be cluttered with off-topic references - e.g. this NY Times reference doesn't even mention Sean Power. Dlabtot (talk) 15:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The claim to be one of the stars of Lead Balloon is a major claim to notability here and it is easily verifiable... and significant appearance in a notable series speaks for itself... 21 appearances = multiple. Even dismissing the one cite that verifies Colm Feore on stage, the article now is well sourced and notability is a lock. And did you notice that the nominator did not even mention Lead Balloon in the nomination, but only spoke of the lessor assertions? Kudos to User:Pohick2 for excellent work in saving this article from the trash bin. And your quote from WP:ENTERTAINER assumes incorrectly that ALL those attribute must be met. What guideline encourages us to do is consider the entire body of an actor's career, and not dismiss parts and ignore others.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 17:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:AGF please. The unspammed version of the article to which I had reverted said "known for playing Marty in Lead Balloon. In 2005, he played Garth O'Hara, a lead character", so I looked at the lead role as the most likely basis of notability, and reported all the checks I had done. If others reckon that there is enough coverage elsewhere to establish notability, that's fine, but I made no attempt to hide or disguise anything. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Good faith all around, as I earlier acknowledged the difficulty you must have faced when looking at the earlier versions. My discovering that Marty was co-star in a well-received and notable series cinched it for me. I do understand how you might have overlooked "known for playing Marty" and gone directly to "Garth O'Hara, a lead character", and I do appreciarte your sharing what checks you did take. We simply use different reseacrh methods. I just wished to stress that others, as you kindly note above, may wish to dig through the earlier spammy versions, find the other unsourced assertions, properly source what they can, and return some of the informations.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 01:46, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Kudos again to User:Pohick2 for sourcing Power's critical acclaim as an actor, playwrite and stage director. Nicely done. Does even more to prove notability than the major Lead Baloon role. Excellent improvements per WP:AFTER.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 07:43, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I was requested to revisit this. I spent well over an hour looking at sources, etc.

To meet notability requirements: "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, or other productions."

To me multiple means 3 or more. Two very clear, extreme, incontrovertible examples might be interpreted as multiple in a pinch.

notable work/significant role
 * 1) Lead Ballon/Marty

He also had a significant role in Stuck but I'm not convinced it's notable although it ran in four "world" cities. I might be able to be convinced of this but that still leaves it one short because it's not clear cut. You would have trouble with an AfD for an article on Stuck and I really don't think it is notable.

As far as sources: "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.  Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject."

There are 20 listed now. I am being very generous with my assessment of them, some of the ok's are really trivial.
 * 1) trivial
 * 2) not mentioned
 * 3) not mentioned
 * 4) own website
 * 5) own website
 * ok
 * 1) review, possibly reliable?
 * ok
 * ok
 * 1) theater
 * 2) pay per view, assume ok
 * ok
 * 1) not mentioned
 * 2) not mentioned
 * 3) pay per view, assume ok
 * 4) pay per view, assume ok
 * 5) not mentioned
 * 6) not mentioned
 * 7) trivial
 * 8) trivial

So I'm trying to check information, like "Best Actor Toronto Fringe 1996" because it might be possible to convince me that is a major award, maybe. '''But the reference given doesn't show that. The website where the reference is supposed to be doesn't show that.''' I'm not saying it's not true, I'm saying, the reference doesn't support it. It may or may not be true, but I'm not gong to take Mr. Power's word for it.

I'm not going to try to pick them all apart this way but the summary above shows that some of them are very weak or non-existent and some of them didn't pan out as far as saying what they purport to say. This is an AfD for a BLP and things like this bother me normally and in this situation I'm being asked to re-evaluate after the article is salvaged and this is what I find. At least 30% of them don't mention him by name and most of the rest are trivial.

Also Mr. Powers has an excellent photographer but the web designer who came up with the "bubbles" transition in the photo gallery should be bitch-slapped.

So I have to stick with my original opinion that Sean Power is not notable and the article should be deleted. If it can clearly be demonstrated 1/2/3 major work/significant role that he meets the requirements as I interpret them or if my interpretation is completely wrong I will look at the information again but it's going to have to be laid out for me, I'm not spending another hour and half two hours on this and I'm not going to argue nuances. Drawn Some (talk) 10:30, 9 May 2009 (UTC) I'm not going to oppose the keep, since there seems to be consensus for that, but personally I'm not persuaded that it's as clear-cut as some editors suggest. He may just scrape through the "had significant roles in multiple notable [productions]" clause, but so far as I can see only Lead Balloon meets that test: his role in Fair City seems to have been minor, and none of the stage appearances seem to be in WP:N notable productions. (Note that WP:ENTERTAINER refers to multpiple notable roles, not just one, as MichaelQSchmidt seems to suggest above). Trying to apply the WP:N I have read all the references provided (apart from those which require a subscription), but none of those seems to be significantly about him; he gets a mention in most of them (though not even a name listing in some), but he does not appear to be the subject of any of these reviews, and most of them give him very brief mentions. This looks to me like a borderline case -- he's one good decent news article short of meeting WP:N and one major role short of meeting WP:ENTERTAINER (unless STUCK is a notable production, and it doesn't quite seem there to me). However, Power is young and clearly going places, so I expect that he will before long be clearly over the threshold of either WP:BIO's general criteria or the specific criteria in WP:ENTERTAINER, so it would be folly to delete the good work done in documenting his career so far. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC) You refer to "His recent work as creator, actor, and director (3 DIFFERENT notable positions)" ... which again doesn't add up, because you haven't demonstrated that either his directing or his playwriting has been the subject of significant coverage. You mention two reviews in Village Voice, but I see only this one which gives him only one paragraph of coverage in an article about four plays. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC) Now, if you had read what I wrote rather than having to refresh your memory of the notability guidelines (see, I can do sarcastic too!), you would see that I assessed the article against both the specific and general notability criteria, so I'm not asking you play tennis over a sub-guideline. As I noted, he'll probably get there, but so far the coverage of him (as opposed to things he has been involved in) is nearly all trivial, and some of it appears to not even mention him. You appear to be having a bad faith day, because you pile on the misrepresentations of my views. Did you miss the bit where I said I wouldn't oppose keeping it, or where I congratulated those involved in having expanded the articles? It'll [WP:AGF|AGF]] and take it that you don't read those bits, because otherwise you wouldn't be saying that my view was unchanged. --00:38, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment The article has been significantly expanded, and is now well-referenced. Congrats to those who have done the hard work.
 * Edit conflict with Drawn Some's comments, but it seems that we simultaneously reached similar conclusions, only Drawn Some has set it out in much more detail than I did. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:54, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually we didn't reach the same conclusion. We both said he doesn't meet criteria, you said you wouldn't oppose the keep regardless of not meeting the criteria and I said delete.  Opposite conclusion. Drawn Some (talk) 10:58, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that would have been better phrased as same assessment, but difft recommendations. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:03, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Thank you both for stepping back in,. The 21 episodes of Lead Balloon, whether you count 21 as as one event or 21 as 21 events, still grants verified notability. His recent work as creator, actor, and director (3 DIFFERENT notable positions) in the critically acclaimed STUCK are also a verified assertion of notability... either in it's critical reviews or in it's awards (even if only one is sourced), or both. Either assertion for its notability is sufficient. Bothe are more so. So here we have an article about a television actor, a film actor, a stage actor, a director, and a playwrite. Guideline encourages us to look at all relevent factors toward inclusion and not hangon only those that might support exclusion. Enough reliable sources have been presented, and others have been offered to meet the simple requirement per policy for verification of other facts presented in the article as, even if a few do not mention him by name, they are required by policy to verify other facts as presented... else those facts would be speeedily removed from a BLP as being unsourced... and it would not do to have that happen again. The two uses of his website are allowed because it is not sourcing something the subject wrote, but offer archived reviews from The Village Voice... their opinion... not his... and when THEIR archives are opened through diligent search or the reviews are found hardcopy at a local library, there can easily be an exhange of sources. The combination of all considered factors allows a conclusion of notability... through multiple notable work in notable different areas of notable productions.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 11:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply. Schmidt, please re-read WP:ENTERTAINER. It clearly refers to "significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, or other productions" " (NB multiple), so his role in Lead Balloon alone does not meet notability requirements unless you count each episode as a separate role. That's quite a stretch of the guidelines. :(
 * Comment BHG, please re-read WP:PEOPLE, the parent of WP:ENTERTAINER. You forgot to mention that he fails those other sub-criteria too. What an editor is "supposed" to do is, starting at the top of the page, is to slowly move one's eyes downward reading for how a person qualifies for inclusion.. and how an editor's eyes should actually lock on and read the "Basic Criteria" to see how the provided sources clearly pass those basic inclusion criteria of WP:PEOPLE through his works and their coverage and verifications through the parent criteria of WP:GNG and WP:N. Guideline does not suggest one then continue down the list of subordinant criteria in order to find ones that exclude a person in contradiction to the quite clear basic criteria and the parent criteria. So I need not bother arguing about his meeting or not meeting secondary criteria, or interpretation of "multiple" in secondary criteria, when he meets all the primary criteria, through policy, guideline and WP:COMMONSENSE. I was quite proud of the work done by User:Pohick2 in improving the article even in the face of disdain and so asked you back to see how your concerns had been properly addressed. I see that your opinion of that article has not changed in the light of initial concerns being addressed. I will not then engage in a tennis match over interpretation of one part of sub-guideline in contradiction to its parent guideline. And did you somehow overlook that the internationally touring STUCK has been the subject of multiple reviews and acclaim on both sides of the Atlantic? That's a home run as far as WP:N and the WP:GNG are concerned. So thank you and happy editing.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 15:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply, Schmidt, I am quite familiar with WP:BIO's main criteria and with those in WP:N, and my eyes don't need to lock onto them -- I can recite them by heart.
 * I apologize for any misperceptions and my frustrations, as you have been dutiful and civil. We have differences in our interpretations, and I accept that this will not change. I think he now has significant coverage in reliable sources per the GNG, and others want justthat little bit more. Well, I have done more here to address the original concerns of fluff than I have in many other rescues. It stays or it goes now based upon what other editors opine and how an Admin determines the condition of the article based upon improvements, comparisons with the version that was nommed, and his/her own understanding of guideline and policy. Thank you for your continued civility.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 03:06, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note to closing Admin: The basice citeria for WP:PEOPLE begins "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability. Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject.". Simple and difficuly to misunderstand. The next section "additional criteria" list some additional standards, of which WP:PEOPLE is one, but specifically states among its cautionary caveats: "Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included" and "Should a person fail to meet these additional criteria, they may still be notable under Notability." Continuing on past these preliminary instructions in order to then find some way to exclude a notable person is not what guideine expects or desires. This individual's notability has been asserted, properly established, and properly sourced through WP:N and WP:GNG. Thank you.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 19:07, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, the name seens familiar and I see multiple examples of Irish television series and multiple sources from UK newspapers such as The Independent and The Daily Telegraph. -- can  dle &bull; wicke  19:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * the name seems familiar is not part of our notability guidelines. There are a lot of links in the article, but most of them don't even mention Sean Power. They certainly don't qualify as significant coverage in multiple independent third-party sources. Dlabtot (talk) 19:27, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I apologise if that came across incorrectly but taken as a whole I have given valid reasoning. Thank you. -- can  dle &bull; wicke  23:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong keep, well referenced article, exceeds all notability guidelines. Editors delete votes seem to be ignoring WP:N and WP:GNG in their concentration on a subordinate set of criterias. Ikip (talk) 22:05, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Closing nominator please note this article has gone through signifigant improvement sine the nominiation. Ikip (talk) 22:05, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. A huge amount of work has gone into expanding and referencing this article, but I am still not persuaded that Power actually meets any of the notability criteria. I went through all the refs yesterday and concluded that there was no evidence of him having won significant awards, nor of him having played multiple notable roles, nor of multiple instances of substantail a coverage of him independent reliable sources. Since then we have lots of assertions such as that the "delete" !voters are ignoring WP:N. Please could those advocating a keep set out simply the evidence for an each of these claims, such as
 * That STUCK is a notable production. Where are the refs which establish STUCK as meeting WP:N? I see only a few brief reviews in mostly marginal sources
 * That Power was a lead character in Lead Balloon. This ref from the article describes him as one of several actors supporting a vehicle created for Jack Dee.
 * That Power meets WP:N through being the subject of multiple instances of substantial coverage in WP:RS reliable sources independent of the subject? The vast majority of the refs either mention him in passing or don't mention him at all. e.g. this is so trivial that I wonder why it's used as a reference at all. It seems to do nothing other than to boost the reference count). The claim about his role in Stratford is based on this promotional blurb from a theatre hosting his later work this NYT ref which doesn't mention Power's name
 * That Power has won major awards. Where, for example is the evidence that the "Best Actor Toronto Fringe 1996" is a major award?
 * am concerned that some contributors here seem to be relying on the mere existence of a long list of references, but most them look like very thing gruel to me. I'm happy to accept that I may have missed something, so please can someone set out clearly what refs support what cliams to notability? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:17, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment I hope the nom and I are allowed to disagree in our different interpretations of guideline. I accept that the nom is in good faith being diligent. She took the original article, looked at it with proper concerns for sourcing and reduced it to this before nominating it for deletion. Per AFTER, POTENTIAL, PRESERVE, ATD, RESCUE, and CLEANUP, myself and others went through it to address concerns and the present version is what is now under consideration for deletion.
 * STUCK is a notable production ("has won significant critical attention") per in-depth articles or reviews by experts respected in the genre. So here's 9 (guideline says "multiple", not dozens upon dozens): OOBR, Vue Weekly, RTE Entertainment, The Stage, Financial Times 1, Fast Forward Weekly, Financial Times 2, Gay-Ireland, The Post. Awards: Ontario Arts Council, Chalmers Awards 1998 (page 7)
 * Power was a lead character in Lead Balloon (21 episodes (entire run of series) co-starring with Jack Dee). Co-starring in a notable series, even one that was originally created as a "vehicle" for one actor (in order to garner funding and audience base), does not reduce the notability of the co-stars. He was not a minor player, a walk-on, a cameo, or a background extra. He was a major part of the series and part of plot and story of each and every episode. However, he has also been part of many other productions ("significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, or other productions") in television (Moving Wallpaper, Lead Balloon, The Wild West, Holby City, Fair City, The Big Bow Wow) and film (2:22, Played, Tara Road, Cowboys & Angels, Bad Karma, Joe's Wedding, Twisted Sheets, Life with Mikey) before, during, and after his acclaimed works on stage.
 * Power meets WP:N, WP:PEOPLE, and subordinant criteria of WP:ENTERTAINER ("significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, or other productions") and WP:CREATIVE ("has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition" and "has won significant critical attention") through his being the subject of multiple instances of more-then-trivial yet less-than-substantial coverage ("If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability"). Guideline accepts that sources may not always be substantial and so instructs that these not be trivial. A mention in a list is trivial. Repeated reviews and critical acclaims of a performance are not trivial.
 * Power has won major awards ("The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them"). Toronto Fringe Festival and Chalmers are awards determined by peers and industry... not some neighborhood bake sale award ("standards have not yet been established to define a major award").
 * The article is not in the same unsourced sorry state as the original and is a far cry from the 3-sentence stub that was brought to AfD. So, this up to other editors (and the closer) to determine if she is in good faith being too strict in her interpretation of guideline or if I in good faith am being too liberal. I find Sean Power notable through looking at his entire body of work... the major and minor pieces that make up his life, and have included as much information for the reader as can be reasonably presented without overburdening the article. And for concerns of the one or two shorter provided sources, core policy WP:V demands that EVERYTHING in an article must be verifiable, but does not mandate that a one sentence, non-notable, non-controversial factoid in an article must itself be suported by dozens of in-depth tomes. IE: If I include in the article that person "A" did something "B", policy requires I source that "A" in fact did "B" though WP:V. What guideline DOES mandate is that ALL assertions of notability be supported though proper WP:RS, and that has been done.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 18:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions.  — Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 22:54, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  — Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 22:59, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions.  — Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 22:59, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. From this discussion, I believe I can understand why the nom was brought in the first place. However, I believe that, in large part thanks to MQS, the article has been massively improved and it now meets the GNG. HJMitchell    You rang?  00:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Has received several non-exclusive but far from trivial mentions in reliable independent sources. In other words, meets WP:GNG. decltype (talk) 00:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep -- I checked the discussion on the nominator's talk page, that they requested we look at. I am concerned by what appears to be a lapse from WP:BITE.  Nominator may have had valid concerns at the time of the nomination.  I question whether scaling the article back to insignificance, and then nominating it for deletion, is appropriate.  Surely the permissible choices shoudl be one, or the other?  Anyhow, without regard to whether the article's content once lapsed from compliance with WP:COI it now seems well referenced and to have been largely written by individuals who are not in a COI.  Geo Swan (talk) 01:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. I only knew him from Lead Balloon, and I can see from this article that he has got notability aside from this role, including stage work. Whoever did the sourcing and writing, well done. Fences and windows (talk) 03:29, 12 May 2009 (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.