Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Hanlon

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 no consensus‎. Pretty much per the last relist comment. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:50, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Hanlon[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Declined PROD under assertion that subject passes WP:NACTOR, however the required WP:SIGCOV cannot be found in historic publications to assert subject as being sufficiently notable for an article. Initial discussion occurred on the talk page without a clear consensus. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:48, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Film, and Theatre. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:48, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:07, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find anything beyond confirmation he was in the films (in various ads for them). Tried Gbooks and a newspaper search from 1916-1922, nothing extensive turns up. Oaktree b (talk) 19:59, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I deproDed the page; and obviously still think Hanlon passes WP:NACTOR for the at least 2 verifiable significant roles he had in 2 notable films, the guideline stating, "The person has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions".-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:35, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: An actor with starring role in a particularly significant film, I think he passes muster. I suspect there are more sources out there that just aren't on the radar. The early motion picture trades are voluminous but hard to search.Justinkrivers (talk) 15:41, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Justinkrivers, not that i'm challenging the accuracy of your statement, but which film are you asserting to have been "particularly significant", and what evidence are you citing to backup the claim the subject's involvement was "starring", or significant in any way? From my own searching, I have yet to find anything to suggest this individual was particularly noteworthy, else i'd have gladly developed the article myself. If we're making claims he had "significant roles", this needs backing up with something. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:48, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it is reasonable to argue that Pr Aronnax's character in 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea might be considered not significant. As for Bill Carson in The Great Problem, all right, let me quote the synopsis verbatim for you.

"After her father Bill Carson is imprisoned and her mother Mary dies, Peggy becomes a pickpocket. When she is caught, a reform-minded district attorney, George Devereaux, decides to take her in as his ward and "civilize" her. George's experiment is a success, and Peggy is soon engaged to one of his friends. At the wedding, however, she realizes that she really loves George, so she runs away and becomes a thief once again. Meanwhile, Bill has been released, and he is determined to kill George, who had him convicted. When Peggy, who secretly has been watching George, sees Bill pull a gun on him, she jumps between the two men and lets the bullet hit her. Bill forgets all about vengeance after wounding his daughter, and then, when Peggy recovers, George marries her."

It is even more significant when you know the topic and message of the film, again, let me quote AFI for you, verbatim: "According to news items, this film embodied the theories of American penologist Thomas Mott Osborne, the chairman of the New York State Commission for Prison Reform (1913) and warden of Sing Sing prison in New York State (1914-16). Osborne assumed a false name and secretly served a week at Auburn prison to learn of conditions there. At the time of this film's release, Osborne was vindicated in court of one set of charges, and awaiting trial on further indictments. "

You could also watch the films. So 2 significant roles in 2 notable films. QED. Best, -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:04, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did indeed recently watch the 1916 version of 20,000 Leagues, at a theatre with an original live score by a band. I specialize in silent film, and although I can't say I love this version, it certainly is a cinema landmark. Would have loved to see Stephin Merritt's score in San Francisco. There are numerous markers of its significance...programmed regularly, received a restoration from national archive, is preserved in notable collections, programmed for international festivals, written about a lot. The professor is one of the main characters. This is true across the other five adaptations of the novel that I have watched (and the novel itself). I mean, he's really the lead character except that Nemo is the juiciest role and usually gets top billing. Justinkrivers (talk) 17:33, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Maliner (talk) 20:28, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in the article are not WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth and BEFORE showed database records. Nothing above is sourced or are based in guidelines/policy, they are unambiguous ILIKEITT votes. // Timothy :: talk 17:37, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NACTOR is a guideline and the source is clearly named (American Film Institute). Please refrain from commenting other people's !votes if the only thing you have to say about them is inaccurate, thank you. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:39, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense Jack, no sources, just opinions. // Timothy :: talk 19:45, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can only repeat my 1st reply: "WP:NACTOR is a guideline and the source is clearly named (American Film Institute). Please refrain from commenting other people's !votes if the only thing you have to say about them is inaccurate, thank you." Just read the guideline, read our !votes carefully and check the source. Given the tone of your reply, I have no further comments. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:14, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: @Mushy Yank: WP:NACTOR applies (its part of NBIO) and it says clearly, "Such a person may be considered notable". You have a bad habit of twisting guidelines to substitute your opinions on notability and it needs to stop. When a guidelines says may be notable it does not mean always is notable. Do not present it otherwise. // Timothy :: talk 21:05, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My comments are both sourced and well informed. The text of a blockbuster movie is certainly a source and is relevant in this context. I don't have any personal interest in this article. I just think it meets the criteria for notability. I also wouldn't mind if you assumed some good faith. I also see newspaper articles that show him touring in theatre productions across the country, working for Edward Albee's grandfather as a stage manager in Rhode Island, managing the Lafayette Players... the New York Dramatic Mirror reports that he did at least two seasons with Ben Hur in 1907 (this show was the Cats of its day), he also directed theatre in Chicago, Washington, New York, Albany...there's a picture of him in The Knickerbocker News in 1947 giving a Gannett reporter stage makeup (probably for a feature that I haven't found) and there's a letter to the editor he wrote to the New York Sun in 1927 referencing an article he wrote in The Evening Sun...seems like he got lots of coverage in sources that require a little more effort to search. I'm an experienced editor and a very good researcher and I stand by my comments completely.Justinkrivers (talk) 01:37, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note on the reply by TimothyBlue above. Since they pinged me, and considering the content and tone of their latest reply, I find it necessary to add a note, although I had expressed no willingness to do so: You have a bad habit of twisting guidelines to substitute your opinions on notability and it needs to stop. When a guidelines says may be notable it does not mean always is notable. Do not present it otherwise. does not seem to be an appropriate comment, neither in tone nor content. If someone really thinks this rather serious accusation is supported by something, then, by all means, let them raise the issue at the appropriate forum. As for me having presented the WP:NACTOR guideline in a misleading light during the course of this particular discussion, it is very easy to verify that it is not true. Should anyone indeed think that something, whatever it is, needs to stop, I am, again, inviting them to raise the issue at a more appropriate forum, as this is not what we are discussing here. Thank you.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:08, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 21:55, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More than likely passes the notability bar, but the lack of sources is what's holding us back here, if that helps explain the situation. That's why I !delete voted this. Oaktree b (talk) 23:22, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (but weak keep) -- clearly notable because of his roles but need sources with which to build an article. See the discussion at Talk:Dan Hanlon#Notability.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:22, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep This should be kept for now, but it’s quite possible it won’t stand the test of time if new roles don’t develop over time. Go4thProsper (talk) 17:33, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I respect the expressions offered by A. B. and Go4thProsper, however do note that they appear to suggest that WP:SOURCESEXIST without explicitly knowing that to be the case; this is a position that should be avoided in a deletion discussion. The text on that link says it fairly straight: "We keep articles because we know they have sources, not because we assume they have". My position is that I struggled to find sufficient sourcing to justify an article for the individual. I appreciate not every historic publication has been digitalised, but by late 2023, many have and the lack of WP:SIGCOV in what has been digialised is apparent. As I noted in previous comments, i'd have welcomed the opportunity to develop this article if I could find sufficient sources. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:45, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In one of my previous comments I suggested a number of avenues for further searching as well as other sources I found that indicate further inquiry would be fruitful. This subject isn't of interest to me personally so I'm not going to spend a lot of time on it, but I think this article is a great example of one of the unfortunate biases that we deal with here on a regular basis: the bias towards digital as opposed to analog sources. A successful and notable theatre career would not be covered in digitized sources, in a similar way that a successful and notable theatre career of even the 1970s or 80s is often not covered in digitized sources. I've run into that a lot. Justinkrivers (talk) 23:58, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Justinkrivers, while I accept that there may well be "unfortunate bias" when it comes to actors published in historic sources, that doesn't extend to all editors, nor does it mean that someone who had some form of career historically is automatically notable without being able to demonstrate that as being the case. Further up, you mention you found some interesting material but failed to further reference its whereabouts or clippings, which would have assisted (I found sources relating to a different person by the same time, during that time also, which I was mindful not to conflate with our subject).

In contrast, I had no issues writing similar articles (from scratch) on the likes of Allene Crater, Gisela Werbezirk and Daisy Belmore, all of who acted on stage and/or film during the late 19th/early 20th century; I trust this also shows a committent from myself in establishing such articles. I am sure there is much more material on those yet to be digialised also, but enough was there to demonstrate notability. I struggled to find WP:SIGCOV on Dan Hanlon; maybe it's very deeply hidden, maybe not, but we could always revisit an article further down the line, as there is WP:NORUSH. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:35, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned the Evening Sun, the New York Dramatic Mirror and the Knickerbocker News specifically. Only a few of those are digitized and sometimes are accessible via Fulton Newspapers. Knickerbocker is only digitized for a couple of years in late 1980s, the rest is on microfilm only, so you'd have to go to Albany. Some of the motion picture trades are searchable via Lantern. His name is Daniel E. Hanlon and can be found as Daniel E. or as Dan E. sometimes.Justinkrivers (talk) 14:07, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. There is clearly a desire to retain this article on the part of several participants but a lack of adequate SIGCOV to justify it. I'm going for a final relist to ask if this relatively newly created article could be draftified, merged or redirected? You all are the subject matter experts, I just wanted to raise the question of ATD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:39, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NBASIC. People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. Hanlon does not satisfy those guidelines, even though he may be notable due to his roles, NACTOR is part of NBIO as TimothyBlue states above. I can't find NBASIC-noteworthy sources either on ProQuest, Google Books, and the Wikipedia Library. Justinkrivers, does the sources you mentioned above (The Dramatic Mirror, The Knickerbocker News, The Evening Sun, etc.) have significant coverage of the subject, and is independent and secondary? Tails Wx 02:20, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Independent and secondary, yes. Significant, not sure. I see short items that mention his career to the public as if it were worthy of reporting on but I don't see any long profiles of him. There's a mention as well to a column or article series he wrote in the Evening Sun but that paper is not fully digitize. The photo in the Knick appears to be a lead in to a larger story but the rest of that issue is not digitized. What I have found indicates that he did those few films and then went back to a long national career in theatre, which suggests further avenues of inquiry. He appears as an author or co-author of plays in the copyright registers so there are a bunch of play titles and collaborators to calibrate a search as well. My point continues to be that the places where it makes sense to look are not the places where people are looking. A half-hearted attempt on my part came up with a whole bunch of things I could follow up on. But I don't really have the time. I don't love the idea that an article might be deleted because I was too lazy to check, but that's the system we have. The vast majority of newspapers are not simply digitized. Google books is a great resource, but it skews us all because the number of their digitized papers seems like a lot but is really a fraction of what's out there. That's why I like Fulton, it's a chaos grabbag.Justinkrivers (talk) 14:09, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well-sourced, and had a stage career aside from those few roles anyway.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:11, 19 November 2023 (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.