Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan Hartford

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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:36, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Hartford

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article fails to establish notability. Subject does not meet notability guidelines for either WP:GNG or WP:ENT. Works and roles are minor. The article's only source is IMDB Scr★pIron^IV 20:52, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: agree as to non-notability. Maybe too soon, maybe not. Quis separabit? 21:15, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable at this time. Kierzek (talk) 01:40, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:51, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:51, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete by all means as there's simply nothing to suggest addition or improvement (my searches found nothing good) and not only is Wikipedia not IMDb but IMDb summarizes everything that is needed to know; this is also vulnerable to BLP issues and it seems obvious Ryan Hartford is not a major actor (not breakthrough or significant roles) so he's probably getting a paycheck elsewhere. SwisterTwister talk 07:11, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no indication of significance, two of the four listed production titles don't have their own articles, and those with articles, Ryan Hartford is either uncredited or an extra (unless Pedestrian is a major role). This, coupled with the lack of citations and any indication of notability makes this an easy deletion decision in my opinion. Upjav (talk) 16:06, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 11:11, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG for not being notable yet. Steel1943 (talk) 01:42, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Given the backlog of discussions, I recommend that this matter be resolved as a 'snow delete' situation. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 02:44, 28 August 2015 (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.