Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Howes (actor) (3rd nomination)


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Logan Talk Contributions 05:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Thomas Howes (actor)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

non notable actor, his lack of notability remains unchanged since the last AfD Wuh  Wuz  Dat  19:19, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Is this the exact same article that had consensus for deletion about a month ago? ( Even if not the sources seem to reflect why it was brought to AFD in the first place before) Maybe a speedy g4 would have been a better avenue?Ottawa4ever (talk) 19:58, 17 January 2011 (UTC) Scratch that seems to have been declined before based on a dr. Will input later Ottawa4ever (talk) 20:01, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep: Due to being a sufficiently prominent actor (thanks to his role in a very prominent series (Downton Abbey - viewing figures for UK Oct -2010 around 10 million). With sufficient sources and references listed appropriately. This article is back thanks to a Deletion Review (which is here: Deletion review/Log/2011 January 5). (Msrasnw (talk) 20:49, 17 January 2011 (UTC))
 * Weak keep: goes on tour routinely with prestigious theatre groups, and has consistently appeared in the theatre as well as some parts in other media. --AerobicFox (talk) 22:44, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  —Msrasnw (talk) 12:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Consensus at DRV was overturn speedy deletion, article has been substantially improved. This is a procedural AFD that looks pointless, all of those sources are reputable - the BBC, IMDB and respected UK newspapers. Szzuk (talk) 20:44, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep: I'd say this was a rather pointless AFD procedure. The entire Wikipedia has been hit by delete-frenzy mode.Vin99 (talk) 22:58, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep the new and properly sourced stub. My agreeing with a delete at the first AFD was based upon the original article being only a single six-word sentence and not a proper BLP.  But as the then sourced stub article was nominated for deletion only 7 minutes after its creation, I stated I was willing to reverse my decision if the article improved.  When it was not improved during the time constraints of the AFD, the one sentence was deleted.  When a far different and far better sourced version was created 2 weeks later, it was erroneously speedied as as WP:CSD G4... but as the deletion was properly overturned due to the new article having significantly different content so as to not be G4 speediable, and as the new article IS significantly improved over its predecessor, this new version can be allowed to grow over time and with regular editing.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 07:40, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Tried to be as objective as i could here given the history. I see that his theatre involvment is of notable troups, and hes regarded enough in the media as being a notable actor cast in a role. The sources look good, he satisfies WP:gng in my regards, and elements of WP:Ent. No probs with keeping this in the main space. Ottawa4ever (talk) 13:57, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Steady Keep - proved to be a actor. notable one too.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:01, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Sufficiently notable and now playing a recurring role in a major series.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:54, 23 January 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.