Peter Hehir: Was a regular cast member on The Sullivans , but seems to have otherwise played relatively minor roles.  (I'm unfamiliar with Australian cinema, so I could be wrong).  No online sources other than IMDB, etc. I was able to find several mentions in old newspapers on TWL, but they were all very brief and didn't satisfy WP:SIGCOV .  PROD was removed by Kvng with the rationale 26 incoming links indicate potential importance .  I checked a few of the incoming links and they were all from cast lists, with none of the pages mentioning the article subject in detail.  — SamX [ talk · contribs · he/him] 03:36, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Australia .  — SamX [ talk · contribs · he/him] 03:36, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : I agree that the subject fails WP:GNG .  I also believe that he fails WP:NACTOR .  As SamX points out, it seems like the subject's time on The Sullivans appears to be his only major role.  In a newspaper search, the only additional reliable sources I could find were two brief reviews of The Hour Before My Brother Dies , a made-for-TV film.  The film does not appear to meet WP:NFILM (so its article should also probably be nominated for AfD or even PROD), and thus the subject does not meet WP:NACTOR .  voorts ( talk / contributions ) 04:22, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:35, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  AFI Award nominee who satisfies NACTOR with his roles in the above mentioned Sullivans, a lead in I Live with Me Dad and his AFI nominated role in Fast Talking .  How quickly would it snow keep if he was a nominee for USA's major award instead of some other countries.  duffbeerforme ( talk ) 02:16, 5 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Re: AFI.  He was nominated once, did not win.  I'm not sure that's clearly enough to meet WP:NACTOR or WP:ANYBIO .  ~ Kvng ( talk ) 13:37, 5 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes Kvng, but what I actually wrote was that he passed NACTOR with his roles, multiple significant roles in notable productions.  duffbeerforme ( talk ) 00:58, 6 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Should have read voorts comment properly, add a lead in The Hour Before My Brother Dies to the list of significant roles.  Film with multiple AFI nominations.  duffbeerforme ( talk ) 01:02, 6 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep multiple significant roles and an AFI nom seems to meet WP:NACTOR .  His most significant work was pre-Internet so may be hard to substantiate online.  ~ Kvng ( talk ) 20:03, 6 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: See if the keep-voters can explain more about GNG in the nomination statement.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Timothytyy ( talk ) 13:01, 7 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Trivial roles perhaps, I'm not seeing any significant coverage of the individual.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:26, 7 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Could you please justify that throwaway comment about "trivial roles perhaps" against the above identified significant roles especially considering the Sullivans role acknowledged in the nomination.  duffbeerforme ( talk ) 13:49, 8 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Based on my limited knowledge of the series involved and what appeared to me during a cursory glance at the information.  I haven't done a deep dive into each, frankly, I'm not that invested.  I couldn't find anything that supported GNG.  Others can disagree and dig further if they choose.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:56, 31 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This should not have been relisted.  The relisting of this afd is essentially a supervote.  There has been a clear demonstration that the subject satisfied WP:NACTOR .  That is sufficient and has been a long common outcome.  WP:N states "It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG)" such as NACTOR.  GNG is a companion piece, it does not trump the SNG.  Relistors are meant to evaluate the discussion, not introduce their own interpretation of policy.  duffbeerforme ( talk ) 13:45, 8 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Additional to that can I ask those that claim he "fails" gng (especially commentators after the identification of significant roles) to identify what attempts they made to find offline sources given that Hehir's most prominent roles occurred pre internet saturation.  duffbeerforme ( talk ) 13:56, 8 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It is for those seeking to keep an article to provide sources, not for those seeking to delete it to prove none exist.  Stifle ( talk ) 10:20, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong keep regular actor in a major Australian cultural work.  Additionally has roles in numerous notable works as per blue links in article.  Clearly satisfies WP:NACTOR and WP:N Relistors and original AfD deletion advocates have still yet to address the concerns raised by duffbeerforme Jack4576 ( talk ) 14:52, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Disruptive BLP PROD removal.  BLP, fails GNG and BIO.  BEFORE showed nothing that meets IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.  WP:BLP states "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources"' ; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability per well known core policy ( WP:V and WP:BLP ) and guidelines ( WP:BIO and WP:IS , WP:RS , WP:SIGCOV ).  // Timothy :: talk 19:29, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Two things Timothy .  1 Can you justify your claim that subject fails BIO given that NACTOR is part of BIO and a passing of NACTOR has been asserted above identifying pertinent roles.  2 Most of the plethora of policies and guidlines you link in your boilerplate are about the contents of an article, not about the existence of the article.  Yes WP:BLP states "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources" and any contentious material in a BLP without that must be removed but it doesn't say the whole article must be deleted.  (Side question, How active would you be if you weren't semi retired?) duffbeerforme ( talk ) 07:27, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Sandstein 10:09, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Lacking evidence of significant multiple roles to meet WP:NACTOR .  LibStar ( talk ) 04:08, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I have now improved the article.  There is now a link showing the existence of a collection of Biographical cuttings on Peter Hehir at the National Library of Australia that provides evidence of coverage for GNG so I'm expanding my ! vote to say he passes both NACTOR and GNG.  Pinging other previous ! delete commentators LibStar , SamX , Oaktree b , voorts .  duffbeerforme ( talk ) 07:37, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm still not persuaded the subject meets GNG or NACTOR: I can't review the biographical cuttings since they're not digitized, so I can't opine on that, but if they are what I think they are (effectively a scrapbook), I'm not sure how that establishes notability.  The first source, an article titled "Movies available on tape in Canberra" from 1983, does not contain SIGCOV of the subject.  The second source, a review of The Unquestioning , is a short plot synopsis.  The third source is a link to a library catalog page.  The fourth source just states that he was nominated for an award, but WP:NACTOR requires winning an award to establish notability under that test.  voorts ( talk / contributions ) 21:39, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks voorts for looking again.  On your points in reverse order: 2.  Each of those four sources attest to the significance of his roles in each of the productions, directly addressing the NACTOR#1 criteria of significant roles in notable productions.  (Note that number 2 is not about The Unquestioning , thats just the opening two words) 1.  By maintaining a delete position you are opining that the cuttings are not good enough.  And I don't understand your point about a scrapbook.  How would cutting a newspaper article out of the paper and placing it in a scrapbook make it any less valid?  duffbeerforme ( talk ) 03:56, 24 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Criterion 1 of NACTOR requires significant roles in multiple notable films , television shows, stage performances, or other productions (emphasis added).  His roles might have been significant in each of the films you've cited, but there's no evidence that any of those films are notable under either GNG or NFO .  I think the sources you've provided, while reliable, are the equivalent of TV Guide synopses, not reviews by established critics such that the films are notable.  voorts ( talk / contributions ) 05:06, 24 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It's not up to the Peter Hehir article to show that other subjects are notable.  But anyway: The Sullivans is clearly notable and has won 5 Logies.  Fast Talking (three AFI nomination) has multiple reviews such as in the New York Times by Walter Goodman 23 April 1986.  Also in Cinema Papers *2, Sun-Herald, The Age.  It is also covered in depth in Australian film 1978-1994 : a survey of theatrical features [10] .  I Live with Me Dad was reviewed in The Sydney Morning Herald and the Canberra Times, both major Australian newspapers.  The Last of the Knucklemen (7 AFI nominations) was reviewed in Cinema Papers, Sun-Herald, Sydney Morning Herald, Adelaide's Advertiser and The Age and is preserved by the The National Film and Sound Archive of Australia where the curator notes [11] " The Last of the Knucklmen received some of the best critical notices of any Tim Burstall film" and they also hold assorted papers relating to the film [12] .  duffbeerforme ( talk ) 11:49, 24 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Could you please share links to the reviews you've cited?  voorts ( talk / contributions ) 23:54, 26 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I've updated some film articles, including some links to reviews, to better show their notability.  Should also add Two Friends to the list of good roles.  duffbeerforme ( talk ) 11:30, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Changing my vote to keep per sources provided by duffbeerforme .  The subject has had at least two significant roles in notable projects: The Sullivans (which nobody is disputing) and Silver City, which was nominated for several Australian Film Institute awards, including Best Supporting Actor for the subject.  If other users think the sourcing done by duffberforme is insufficient, then I would be okay with draftifying this article so that better sources can be added.  voorts ( talk / contributions ) 17:39, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks,  — Amakuru ( talk ) 13:35, 31 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per duffbeerforme, meets NACTOR.  Deus et lex ( talk ) 22:40, 1 June 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: keep