Talk:David Hartman (TV personality)

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Actors and Filmmakers

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers (assessed as Low-importance).

Employment I.

This article fails to tell whatsoever Mr. Hartman did when he left "Good Morning America', and there seems to be more than a decade of missing Hartman history at that point. He seems to have vanished from the face of the Earth. In fact, when I decided to look him up, I was trying to figure out if he was still alive or not. He's alive, but he has doubtless exceeded retirement age by now. DAW 72.146.59.18 01:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Employment II.

People, especially in this business, get considered for employment opportunities all the time. Most of these "considerations" never transpire into something concrete, and so, they are not important events, or noteworthy at all. They're just garbage. Wikipedia articles should be about real happenings, and not just idle "considerations". I have "taken out the trash" and elimated the whole discussion of the David Brinkley position. DAW 72.146.59.18 01:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lifetime

Does Mr. Hartman ever do anything that is not connected with his USAF service, show business, TV reporting, etc.? Was he a good son to his parents, and a good brother? Has he ever been married? Does he have any children? Even if he is a life-long bachelor (see Wilt Chamberlain), that is a noteworthy fact and should be stated. DAW 72.146.59.18 01:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested moves

FYI

– User:JCScaliger has been indef blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Pmanderson (blocked for another year for abusive sockpuppetry).

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page not moved per discussion below. - GTBacchus^(talk) 04:00, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David Hartman (TV personality) → David Hartman – Relisted. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:59, 7 October 2011 (UTC) Primary topic. Page views: 41,610, 4,820, 1,240. Marcus Qwertyus 21:47, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support All three are from the U.S., but only David Hartman is or has ever been known on a national level. Clearly the primary topic. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:58, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is a very common name, and the above support rationale doesn't seem to suffice in justifying the primacy this one should have over all the rest. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:50, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It may be a common name but there are only two other people here with this name. International recognition is a very commonly accepted justification for primacy so I don't know what you mean. Marcus Qwertyus 02:19, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't seem that way when looking at a Google News search. When looking at a simple Gsearch, Wikipedia comes out on top, the others are a ragbag. However we look at it, the rabbi seems more prominent. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 07:30, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose—yet another attempt to make WP an American-only site. Who TF is David Hartman? $Tony (talk)$ 02:10, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As has already been explained, all three are from the United States. That is very presumptive of you to assume I'm part of some conspiracy. Marcus Qwertyus 02:19, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The broader issue of whether topics with common names like this are "really" the primary topic is being discussed here: --Born2cycle (talk) 22:00, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support The most notable of the three here, by a substantial margin. The first oppose suggests that David Hartman is a very common name, and we will find others; if we do, we can put the articles back where they are. I doubt it; David is very common, but Hartman (so spelled) is not. The second oppose seems based on the idea that some English David Hartman is being dissed; who? We could use an article on him, and don't have one. JCScaliger (talk) 02:57, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. None of the David Hartmans are really very notable. David Hartman (the TV personality) was B-list TV presenter 25 years ago; I'm not that sure that a lot more people are looking for him than for the rabbi, to the extent than many people are looking for any David Hartman at all. The rabbi fellow seems to be a lot more important and worthwhile than the TV talking head. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC says "A topic is primary for a term, with respect to importance, if it is has significantly greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term". We're an encyclopedia, not TV Guide or Hollywood Insider. For this reason the primary topic for Twilight is the scientific atmospheric phenomena and not the teen-oriented movie series, notwithstanding that a lot of people are looking for info on Edward and Bella. Given this, if there must be an article named just "David Hartman", it should probably be the rabbi. But keeping it as a disambig is probably best. Herostratus (talk) 02:37, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – "most notable" is not good enough to conclude primary topic. None are primary here. Dicklyon (talk) 02:43, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.