Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harley Cross
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
- 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 no consensus. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:04, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Harley Cross (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No significant roles or coverage. WP:COI issues (major contributions by User:Yelrahssorc). Promotional. – Ploni (talk) 19:34, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Businesspeople. Ploni (talk) 19:34, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
- Keep I believe he has enough notable acting roles like The Believers, The Boy Who Cried Bitch, Perdita Durango and was a regular on two short-lived TV series Sister Kate and Dudley to meet actor guidelines. He has also received non-trival coverage in newspapers and The Hollywood Reporter to meet the GNG guidelines as well 1, 2, 3, 4. Not sure how notable his post acting projects are, but it doesn't seem like they have received and independent coverage besides his involvement with the Mint company which got coverage from Business Week. The article could be rewritten to be less promotional and unverifiable statements could be removed altogether instead of deleting the whole article. GoldenAgeFan1 (talk) 03:38, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:46, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
- Keep The subject seems notable enough. Just needs some rewriting to address the "This article contains content that is written like an advertisement" concern. Fifthapril (talk) 16:38, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
- Delete I don't see any independent references in the article. The only reference cited from Business Week, seems to be deleted https://www.bloomberg.com/businessweek/smallbiz/content/jul2001/sb20010725_470.htm This itself is very suspicious. GoldenAgeFan1 mentions that he is cited in the Hollywood Reporter, but that is not cited in this article, and a google search does not turn it up. As this stands fails WP:GNG PaulPachad (talk) 02:51, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
- Comment User talk:PaulPachad I forgot to post the archived Business Week article, but yes, the original link no longer live on the Business Week website. 5 The Hollywood Reporter citation is the 4th link I posted above. It is not on The Hollywood Reporters website, like many older articles are not. I link I posted was from Proquest's archive. Would you mind checking out those 5 links I've provided my previous post and this one and see if you still think he fails the GNG? 05:04, 27 May 2022 (UTC)GoldenAgeFan1 (talk)
- Delete lacks secondary sources and SIGCOV. Doesn't appear to be notable enough for inclusion. Megtetg34 (talk) 07:24, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, there is no consensus and lively debate has been ongoing during the relist period. Further discussion encouraged.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MaxnaCarter (talk) 06:52, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delete The subject is not notable and the article makes no support for inclusion in Wikipedia. Sources do not make a compelling case. IrishOsita (talk) 03:20, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- 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.