Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Newman (actor)

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. —Korath (Talk) 02:19, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

Robert Newman (actor)

Not notable - vanity? Brookie 19:37, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Keep and expand, or at the very least mark it as a stub. The Wikipedians that are working on the soap opera articles currently have been making separate ones for each and every actor who stared in a soap opera. Zzyzx11 01:04, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep Random nomination of one of many in a class of articles whose acceptibility is established by precedent. Wincoote 09:04, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, just under the bar of notability for me. Megan1967 07:04, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Megan once again votes the opposite of the current majority vote. This is a noteable actor in his field. Keep. RickK 07:06, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
- Voting should not be about playing follow the leader. Megan1967 04:09, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  - Nor should the vote be cast solely to be contrary. RickK 00:09, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
    - I'm not here to be contrary. I'm here to make Wikipedia better. Megan1967 02:32, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Appearing in three network programs is plenty notable. Gamaliel 07:08, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Well known, part of one of Guiding Light's only supercouples. Just because you don't watch soaps doesn't mean these people aren't famous. Mike H 10:21, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
Clearly keep, as a notable actor. - Vague | Rant 10:28, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
Comment: I've done a slight rewrite of the article, showing notability (nominated for four Soap Opera Digest Awards and one Daytime Emmy, supercouple history with Kim Zimmer). Mike H 10:48, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. "Vanity" doesn't mean "I'm clueless" - it means he or a close associate put the article there - David Gerard 22:58, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Please be civil, Brookie is only trying to improve Wikipedia. And note that the article was rewritten between the nomination and your comment. Radiant! 12:24, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
  - Personally, the article established sufficient notability even then. Mike H 21:52, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
    - Either way, David's personal attack on Brookie was uncalled for, as per the policy on Civility. Radiant! 10:34, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, spurious notability. JamesBurns 07:01, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.