Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harold P. Warren (2nd 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 redirect to Manos: The Hands of Fate. Black Kite (talk) 09:14, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Harold P. Warren

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

100% of his notability hinges on Manos: The Hands of Fate. The article says more about the film than it does about him. Almost no biographical info exists anywhere, nor is there anything out there about him not tied to Manos. Suggest deletion or redirection. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:43, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:49, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:49, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:49, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge anything of value and then redirect to the film article. This is essentially notability for a single event (in this case, the event is a movie) and, given the lack of any other information, condensing the information in that article would be appropriate. A biographical section (which would be extremely short) would be fine there. --Kinu ^t/_c 03:54, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:FILMMAKER: "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work." Manos is a very notable film, consistently listed as one of the worst of all time, and he had a large involvement in it, being the director, actor, and screenwriter. I agree that John Reynolds, an article you prodded, wasn't very notable (it could've been anyone playing Torgo), but seeing as how this guy had a large and unique role in the creation of the film, I think he passes. (Heh, I just noticed the nominator voted keep in this article's previous AfD, which was nominated for almost the exact same reason. I guess things change over the years. Beerest355 Talk 00:32, 6 August 2013 (UTC))[reply]

I love how everyone who cites WP:GNG misses the crux: "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." As I said, the article says far more about Manos than it says about him. The film is notable without question, but where's the info on him? A notable film can be made by a non-notable director, especially in a case like this where the person in question did literally nothing else that the world felt was worth noting. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:15, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As TPH said - Notability isn't inherited. The article does largely focus on the film - not the subject. At the very least, this should be redirected to the article. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:21, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.