Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kent Broadhurst

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) SSTflyer 14:53, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kent Broadhurst[edit]

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

IOBDb is a trivial mention of the subject, as is the Doollee.com reference. IMDb is not independent. Searches for additional significant (non-trivial) coverage in reliable independent secondary sources turned up fruitless. Having written a screenplay for a television program does not qualify a person as notable. KDS4444^Talk 02:38, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It's possible that he would squeak by. The TV movie he wrote won an award for Best TV Movie or Miniseries and was nominated for another Best TV Movie award: [1]. There's this mention in a book commending his acting: [2]. At least one of his several plays was listed as one of the best plays of 1982-1983: [3]. It's possible an assiduous Google & GoogleBooks search could turn up more. Given the combination of his talents and accolades, that may put him over the edge. He's in a "who's who" of theater, film, TV: [4]. Six months ago another editor and I cleaned up the article, which was formerly very long and promotional, but we didn't feel it merited deletion. Softlavender (talk) 03:25, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. Okay. The appearance in the best plays of '82-'83 looks to me to be only a trivial mention that doesn't say much (or really anything) about him personally; the bit about him in the acting book looks to be only a part of a paragraph "about an actor I know who got a small part in a big movie"; the award mentioned for his tv series doesn't appear to be be on the page given, but it looks like you are talking about the PRISM Award that the series got (which would contribute to a notability claim for the series...) or the Aurora Gold Award (which also went to the series, but not its writer), though neither of these awards appears to be notable. I agree that there might possibly be enough here for a notability claim, but the evidence is thin. I still can't find any discussion of him in independent reliable sources, which is my biggest concern. Without that, I don't think a genuine notability claim can be supported. KDS4444^Talk 06:41, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When determining the notability of a creative, their entire body of work confers notability, not just discussions of the person themselves. I think there's a case to be made that his TV movie (not a series) winning the Prism Award and being nominated for the Satellite Award is the strongest contention of notability, and when combined with the other mentions and accolades, could confer sufficient notability, especially if something else were found. However I'm not sufficiently convinced right now to !vote, and I lack sufficient interest to do any further research at present. Softlavender (talk) 06:58, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More research: the Aurora Awards pretty clearly seem to be an awards mill: they give out more than 200 awards twice a year and charge each entrant for their submissions (and winners must also pay for their awards statue). The Satellite award is a real award—- though the subject did not receive one. If he were genuinely notable, it shouldn't be so difficult to find evidence of that notability in the form of discussion of him non-trivially in reliable independent secondary sources: people who receive notable awards typically end up being interviewed by journalists and their bodies of work become the subject of newspaper articles, magazines, and books. I am just not finding any of that for this person. KDS4444^Talk 09:08, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why you are talking about Aurora awards; the film won the Prism award. I think having a movie one wrote win a best film award is good; but it is borderline. Again, I'm not !voting, just discussing. Softlavender (talk) 11:06, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:54, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:54, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing suggesting solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:26, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:17, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nominator. I have also searched for some sources and cannot find much coverage. ツStacey (talk) 21:11, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/question Does anyone have an idea of what the PRISM awards are? I found dozens of awards with that name. The only one I see related to entertainment is this. No idea if these awards confer notability. LaMona (talk) 23:58, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@LaMona: Prism Awards, overseen by industry leaders have been given since 1997 by Entertainment Industries Council in collaboration with FX Network and others. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:29, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:56, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

in refining the search:

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

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

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

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

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

Keep as an expandable/improvable stub and simply tag for needed work, as the recognition of his works appears to meet WP:ANYBIO and the length and recognition depth of his career in film, television and theatre look to meet WP:ENT #1 & WP:CREATIVE. Sad that he has not been subject of headlines, but WP:SUBSTANTIAL is not a mandate and not the issue under WP:BASIC which tells us "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". Time to read the books and do some work, not to delete. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:16, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More time to consider MichaelQSchmidt's opinion. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 23:25, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 23:25, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ran a Proquest archives search, 147 hits. I scanned the first page (50 articles) They were all about this Kent Broadhurst (not usual in this sort of search) and they appeared to offer everything needed to write a pretty good WP bio: review of his work as an actor and as a playwright, of parties in his honor, alumni award from his college, ample to establish notability. And I didn't even look at the next 50 hits in the search.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:33, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in view of the large number of sources identified above that allow WP:BASIC to be passed and should hopefully be used to expand the article. Atlantic306 (talk) 18:47, 23 May 2016 (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.