Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Howes (actor)

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2011 January 5.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:12, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Howes (actor)[edit]

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

Actor of questionable notability WuhWuzDat 19:29, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This news article gives me reason to doubt the nominators claim of non-notability. Also, it's a brand new article, which explains why the article hasn't demonstrated the subjects notability yet. There could very well be reliable sources out there that demonstrate notability. --Piast 93 19:36, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment that article is an interview with the Mr Howes about quite a variety of off topic trivia and drivel, and the only "claim to notability" in it is a passing mention at the end that he is playing the "2nd footman" in a tv show. WuhWuzDat 19:48, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Let me clarify my position. I don't believe that that interview by itself proves notability. It would take more than that to substantiate his notability. What it does do, however, is cast doubt upon your claim that he isn't notable. Instead of deleting this article, I propose that we give this article a chance. Another reason I advise caution is because the creator of this article is new, and, if we delete it, there's a very real possibility of them leaving wikipedia. It goes without saying that would be bad for the encyclopedia. Given those two reasons, I believe that it'd be a net positive to keep this article. --Piast 93 22:48, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If Downton Abbey turns into the next Upstairs, Downstairs, perhaps Howes can be reevaluated, but for now, his credits are far too slender. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:49, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's usually seven days in one of these discussions. If there is anything more to add, please add it. At present, there's nothing to show beyond second footman and one episode of ChuckleVision. (For the benefit of Americans, the Chuckle Brothers do a sort of panto style show all year round. I don't watch TV, but I have seen them live and they are funny - though possibly hard to understand if one is used to US comedy. Their shows are very popular and have been going a long time. Playing 'Young Ralf' in one episode is hardly Hamlet.) Peridon (talk) 23:05, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The YP interview is an indication that the paper considers him worth interviewing, and mentions 'stage'. The credits given in the article doesn't mention stage. Possibly there is something there. "Another reason I advise caution is because the creator of this article is new, and, if we delete it, there's a very real possibility of them leaving wikipedia." - That's no real reason for keeping the article. One hopes they will learn from this and stay. And when notability for this subject is established (assuming the AfD goes for delete now), they can re-create it and show his triumphs. It's still early in the career for someone obviously not picked for Harry Potter type stardom at 11. Peridon (talk) 23:14, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 03:24, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete the one-sentence article and return it to author. Per WP:TOOSOON this career is as yet too short and fails WP:ENT.. and he does not apear to have enough coverage in reliable sources and so fails WP:GNG. If this changes in the future, we can certainly do better for this guy than one sentence. And to User:Piast93, you are welcome to work on an artcle for this fellow in a sandbox until it becomes suitable for mainspace. As it stands, one six word sentence does not a BLP make. HOWEVER, and as this sourced stub article was nominated for deletion only 7 minutes after creation, I am quite willing to reverse my decision IF this article improves markedly over the next few days. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:44, 14 December 2010 (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.