Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nate Hartley

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 delete. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 00:14, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nate Hartley[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)

Semi-advertorialized and poorly sourced article about an actor not properly demonstrated as passing WP:NACTOR. He's known primarily for supporting and guest roles, and is sourced entirely to credit lists on IMDb and TV Guide rather than any evidence of reliable source coverage about him. As always, actors are not automatically deemed to pass NACTOR #1 just because the article lists roles -- every actor can always list roles, so there'd never be any such thing as a non-notable actor anymore if simply listing roles exempted him from actually having to clear WP:GNG on the sourcing -- but even on a Google search, I can only find glancing namechecks of his existence, with no evidence of notability-building coverage about him. In addition, the article was categorizing him as LGBT, which I've had to remove as I've been entirely unable to verify that in any reliable sources either. And even the Young Artist Award, which he's templated for without it actually being mentioned in the article body at all, is still not an instant notability freebie -- it would be a credible notability claim if the article were properly sourced, obviously, but is not an instant notability clincher that would exempt him from having to have any reliable sources. Bearcat (talk) 16:16, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Update: One new source has been added since I initiated this discussion — but it's just a piece of "local kid does stuff" human interest coverage in his own hometown media market, so it is not enough coverage to get him over the sourcing requirement all by itself if it's the only reliable source in the mix. Bearcat (talk) 16:12, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:16, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:16, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:52, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:45, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:45, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 18:18, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT and WP:NACTOR - your pick. The entire section on his career in unreferenced. His roles all have first names only are indicative that they are so small as to be virtually cameos. Bearian (talk) 00:07, 8 October 2019 (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.