Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zero Hubbard

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. Extraordinary Writ's argument was very persusive and, in 13 days, unrefuted. Daniel (talk) 01:03, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zero Hubbard[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)

Non-notable actor. Only one significant role and was only a supporting role. The rest are all tiny bit parts. ♟♙ (talk) 21:02, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:23, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:23, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. 95 episodes of Tribes and several other roles is enough to satisfy WP:NACTOR. KidAd • SPEAK 00:37, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Quite apart from a cult roll in Hill Street Blues, and multiple other parts (albeit lesser ones), he provided a prolific (95 episodes) and innovative roll in Tribes, an innovation in soap opera for teenagers. Seems clearly to satisfy WP:ENT. Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 01:24, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Long history of Work in meets WP:NACTOR. Lightburst (talk) 20:36, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The only source provided in the article was IMDB, which fails WP:RS, particularly for a WP:BLP. Performing WP:BEFORE turns up little else in the way of reliable sources covering him in any kind of detail. ♟♙ (talk) 17:01, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I could find nothing but trivial mentions in a WP:BEFORE search. Tribes is his only significant role. Not clear from any sources that his appearances in Hill Street Blues constitute a significant roles as he played different parts and was not a main cast member. As such fails all criteria at WP:NACTOR and WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 21:28, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. With his role in tribes, seems notable to me, since he appeared in perhaps all the episodes (seemed liked a significant role). I think the problem with this article was that its only attribution was originally to imdb. MoviesandTelevisionFan (talk) 13:42, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is lack of coverage. There isn't enough to establish GNG or even to provide any significant content. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 22:53, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Arguments for keeping are rather weak, in that no SNG is absolute and that they do not seem to counter-act the apparent lack of GNG. This needs further discussion to determine whether GNG is indeed failed or not.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:07, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NACTOR tends to be more of a "likely to be notable" than "is definitely notable" type of SNG, so I'm not comfortable leaning too heavily on it, particularly since (as 4meter4 notes) it's at best ambiguous whether he even meets it at all. Since there's no real argument that Hubbard passes the GNG (my searches of Google, Google Books, Proquest, and Newspapers.com don't find anything beyond textbook trivial mentions), Hubbard is in my view not notable. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:08, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:09, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete this page. His role on Hill Street Blues was exceptional and he is a piece of Black History. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.130.108.174 (talk) 06:53, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Particularly per Extraordinary Writ's argument that meeting NACTOR is not a guarantee of inclusion, but merely an indication of potential notability. In this case, exhaustive searches on multiple databases including historical records like Newspapers.com have turned up no sources. The argument that his role had a cult following or was historically significant seems to not be borne out by the coverage. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:00, 21 October 2021 (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.