Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Hughes (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. --Coredesat 05:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Charles Hughes (actor)

Charles Hughes (actor) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Sigh. Unfortunately, some anon decided to remove the prod tag on this one, so we have to clog Afd with it. This child has never appeared in a single move other than the small role he will have in the upcoming Harry Potter film and miserably fails WP:BIO. Note that a page containing a large number of similarly situated actors was just deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minor actors and actresses in Harry Potter 2nd Nomination. Indrian 08:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Pottercruft, WP:NOT a crystal ball. tomasz. 09:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Question: What has crystalballery got to do with this AfD? The HP movie which Hughes appears is scheduled for release on July 13, and it has been so for many many months, and WP allows discussion of verifiably scheduled events without crossing the crystalball line. Or do you think his role could be cut at the last minute? Just wondering what you meant by that. Also I thought we were supposed to avoid calling things that we don't like as "cruft"? --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 16:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. i don't really care about the semantics of "cruft", you can avoid the word to prevent ruffling feathers or distressing fans, but it doesn't change the nature of what it is. Anyway. The crystal ball comes from the fact that this minor actor is not famous other than for one minor part in an unreleased film which i doubt is notable in itself; and that therefore we shouldn't keep it on the basis of "he might be famous in future". exactly the points, in fact, that you make in your ultimate paragraph. tomasz. 16:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Gotcha, and I do happen to agree. By coincidence, I got yelled at some time ago for being "uncivil" by daring to refer to something as "fancruft", so I thought I would do my part to spread the word, as a reasonably non-rude gesture. --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 16:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete at least for the time being. His Entry at IMDB.com list only the upcoming HP movie, where he has a relatively small role that (as far as we know) would be non-repeating in future HP movies. The criteria for entertainers such as screen actors includes:

1. With significant roles in notable films... (most likely fails)
2. Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. (currently fails)
3. Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. (currently fails)

So - while the film is certainly notable, his role may not be considered particularly significant, relative to the returning veteran actors in the HP series. He does not currently have a large fan base, although he may have one after the movie comes out (pretty doubtful), and he has not yet made unique contributions. Therefore he does not appear to be currently notable, but he might be some day (to assume so would be crystalballing). If and when when he is, then he can have an article. BTW I linked the IMDB entry at his article, just in case. --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 16:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - as only appearing in a minor role in one film. IMDb.com is useful for the list of every actor and actress; if he gets more roles, though, then nothing against recreation. The Evil Spartan 17:30, 29 May 2007 (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.