Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Haynes (actor)

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. Two of the "(weak) keep" !votes boil down to just WP:ITSNOTABLE and I ignored them in the close. Randykitty (talk) 15:05, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Haynes (actor)[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)

It’s hard to work through the ref bombing, but there’s no indication of awards or distinctions, and no in depth coverage, just dozens of passing mentions in cast lists and similar sources, so I don’t see that this passes WP:ACTOR. Mccapra (talk) 19:46, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 19:46, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 19:46, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 19:46, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the work history is impressive enough and sufficient for passing WP:NACTOR. As far as WP:GNG is concerned, I think majority of the acceptable references are from the The Stage newspaper, which is a reputed source. What I presume, as most of his theatres are from 80's and 90's, only the printed copies are available which are achieved by British Newspaper Achieve, but not visible without a subscription.Chirota (talk) 10:41, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I’m sorry but I don’t think that rationale makes sense. The problem here isn’t that we can’t find online refs for him - we have fifty-six! The issue is that not one of them is in depth coverage, and almost all are just his name in a cast list. For your case to be true we’d have to suppose there were good in depth references until 1995, when they suddenly stopped, and the subject went on with his career gathering less notice than he ever had before. I don’t really think that’s plausible. As to passing WP:ACTOR, his list of roles looks on the whole minor so I’m not convinced he passes that either. Mccapra (talk) 11:58, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the actor don't have a filmography to pass the WP:NACTOR. But his theatrical career is impressive. Since the British theatrical scene has historically received reverence, where he has acted extensively and that makes him pass WP:NACTOR. His work details is documented in The Stage references, which give us the required sigcov. According to your assumption that his career had a sudden drop from 1995 onwards, we can't anticipate anything that we don't know. What we see, from the references he had a solid theatrical career with no problem to get pass WP:NACTOR. So I think my rationale indeed makes sound, possibly I could not convey it properly. Chirota (talk) 23:05, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t see any in depth coverage of the subject, just cast lists. If this is enough to make an actor notable then any actor with a career is notable. I don’t think a claim of notability can rest on reverence for the UK theatrical scene either. Mccapra (talk) 18:10, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete really don't think that he does pass WP:NACTOR. Not really evidence of 'significant roles', and certainly not of any kind of fanbase or unique contributions Dexxtrall (talk) 21:40, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dexxtrall, he passes WP:NACTOR#1, as he had lead roles in significant stage productions. Please refer to the stage references for more, which cover him significantly. Chirota (talk) 23:13, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing any evidence that he had lead roles in any of these productions in the references. He has played the odd named character but none that are mentioned directly in the source material other than 'Some Voices' which hardly looks like a leading production. In fact, almost all of his stage performances are limited to small productions that don't really provide the notability you are assuming from ' the British theatrical scene's historically recieved reverence' Dexxtrall (talk) 14:44, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:42, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The works and available references pass the notability criteria and WP:NACTOR. GermanKity (talk) 02:37, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:26, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep As it passes WP:NACTOR. Brascoian ^{(talk to me)} 06:07, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails NACTOR. When you get roles like "Cafe Customer" and "Producer 2", it's not a good sign. Lots and lots of "references", but nothing substantial about him specifically. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:03, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, the author of the article for some strange reason has put the 'Filmography' section before the theatre section. There is nodoubt that the subject is primarily notable for his theatre acts and his filmography is noway making him notable per WP:NACTOR but his extensive and impressive theatre career is which some editors are failing to consider while deciding his notability. Chirota (talk) 16:36, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As Dexxtrall has noted, his theatre work isn't all that "impressive". Clarityfiend (talk) 09:43, 5 July 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.