Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colin Tarrant
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 Keep. Nominator withdrew the nomination. No arguments to delete the article have been presented, other than by the nominator. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000(talk) 05:57, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Colin Tarrant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not notable despite a long TV run. Philafrenzy (talk) 19:10, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, He had a major role in one of the most popular programmes on British television for twelve years, and he has also had stage roles that have received plenty of coverage:[1], [2], [3], [4], [5].--Michig (talk) 19:18, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment According to the criteria, actors have to have had "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." We have a long run of The Bill admittedly but apart from that it is just a play about a football manager and a more minor part in The Caretaker. Not sure this amounts to significant multiple roles? (There must be other minor roles no doubt) Philafrenzy (talk) 19:56, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That isn't what NACTOR says. It states that an actor who has had "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions" is likely to be notable. It doesn't follow that any actor that hasn't is not notable, even assuming that that's the case here. Common sense should indicate that an actor who has played a major part in a top-rating television programme over a period of years is going to be considered sufficiently notable to have an article here.--Michig (talk) 20:02, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Are we going to have an article about every actor that has had a run in a TV series? The bar is set too low on these people, they are just jobbing actors. We don't have an article about every carpenter that goes to work every day, every accountant or office worker just doing their jobs. There has to be something special about them other than being on TV surely? Philafrenzy (talk) 20:10, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Actors in major television series are known to the general public and of interest to the general public. Carpenters are not. Are we going to have articles on every actor who has had a major role over several years in one of the most-watched television series in a given country? Of course we are. And why does one of his plays being "Just about a football manager" make that less worthy of consideration? It was the subject of several newspaper articles and also featured on television news. And did you look at the article about the production of The Caretaker that he appeared in? There are three actors listed in the cast, with Colin Tarrant listed first, so how is that a 'minor part'?--Michig (talk) 20:35, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually my meaning was that apart from The Bill it was just two things in the quoted refs, not just about a football manager, but I will concede the point about The Caretaker, nonetheless we just have averagely good actor performing in a variety of roles over his lifetime, some of which happen to be on TV. I don't see what is special about that but I won't oppose retention further since you feel he is so notable. I assume that you will be adding all this in to the article in due course? Philafrenzy (talk) 20:50, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Actors in major television series are known to the general public and of interest to the general public. Carpenters are not. Are we going to have articles on every actor who has had a major role over several years in one of the most-watched television series in a given country? Of course we are. And why does one of his plays being "Just about a football manager" make that less worthy of consideration? It was the subject of several newspaper articles and also featured on television news. And did you look at the article about the production of The Caretaker that he appeared in? There are three actors listed in the cast, with Colin Tarrant listed first, so how is that a 'minor part'?--Michig (talk) 20:35, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Are we going to have an article about every actor that has had a run in a TV series? The bar is set too low on these people, they are just jobbing actors. We don't have an article about every carpenter that goes to work every day, every accountant or office worker just doing their jobs. There has to be something special about them other than being on TV surely? Philafrenzy (talk) 20:10, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That isn't what NACTOR says. It states that an actor who has had "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions" is likely to be notable. It doesn't follow that any actor that hasn't is not notable, even assuming that that's the case here. Common sense should indicate that an actor who has played a major part in a top-rating television programme over a period of years is going to be considered sufficiently notable to have an article here.--Michig (talk) 20:02, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why is Colin Tarrant (who died today) the only one of The Bill cast being considered for deletion? There are several on there not being considered deletion who have only had a short/minor role in the series and haven't done anything else before or since. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.67.230.151 (talk) 00:19, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems he died recently, presumably that was why the article was reinstated but that info had not been added to the article until about an hour ago. I think the manner and coverage of his death combined with the other things now definitely makes this one a keep so I withdraw the deletion nomination. Philafrenzy (talk) 01:18, 29 January 2012 (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.