| Revision as of 08:09, 15 October 2008 editJBsupreme (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers30,453 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 14:52, 15 October 2008 edit undoCollect (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers47,160 edits →Michael Q. SchmidtNext edit → | ||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
| *'''Delete''' NN --] (]) 19:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC) | *'''Delete''' NN --] (]) 19:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Comment''' - I find it more than a little odd that the first edits with this account are an AFD. If any other editors pop up here with votes for deletion as their first edits, they will be struck accordingly. ] (]) 19:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC) | *'''Comment''' - I find it more than a little odd that the first edits with this account are an AFD. If any other editors pop up here with votes for deletion as their first edits, they will be struck accordingly. ] (]) 19:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC) | ||
| :Interesting that the user knew enough to note this as "2nd nomination" -- a true newbie with exceptional omniscience to look up procedures would not be likely to note that at all. I am a tad suspicious. ] (]) 14:52, 15 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Keep''' though it does need a lot more material. I regard deletion as a statement that an article has little hope at all. ] (]) 21:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC) | *'''Keep''' though it does need a lot more material. I regard deletion as a statement that an article has little hope at all. ] (]) 21:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC) | ||
| *<small>'''Note''': This debate has been included in the ]. --] (]) 00:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC)</small> | *<small>'''Note''': This debate has been included in the ]. --] (]) 00:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC)</small> | ||
Revision as of 14:52, 15 October 2008
Michael Q. Schmidt
AfDs for this article:- Michael Q. Schmidt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Has had roles in multiple notable films, but not significant roles. Therefore not notable. See imdb 1 Honey And Thyme (talk) 10:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- Delete whilst multiple sources are provided none of them actually directly discuss the subject, the majority only mentioning his name as a cast member of various projects. Based on this any truly verifiable article would just be a list of credits, not an encyclopaedia article. Guest9999 (talk) 12:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:05, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- Delete NN --Dreamspy (talk) 19:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - I find it more than a little odd that the first edits with this account are an AFD. If any other editors pop up here with votes for deletion as their first edits, they will be struck accordingly. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 19:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- Interesting that the user knew enough to note this as "2nd nomination" -- a true newbie with exceptional omniscience to look up procedures would not be likely to note that at all. I am a tad suspicious. Collect (talk) 14:52, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- Keep though it does need a lot more material. I regard deletion as a statement that an article has little hope at all. Collect (talk) 21:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Schmidt, 01:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)</small
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Schmidt, 01:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Been in over 200 projects (including recurring characters), there are sources. He isn't the biggest name in Hollywood, but that isn't the criteria. There are no small roles, only small people with SPA accounts nominating articles as thier first action. WP:BIO doesn't say "actors of small roles aren't notable", so nom is flawed anyway. PHARMBOY (TALK) 01:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- Delete--I have to agree with the nominator and Guest, and disagree with Pharmboy: the sources are lists, nothing more. No discussion, no comments, really, no coverage. Yes, there are small roles. And this support for an AfD is not my first contribution. CC, whence this conspiracy theory? Drmies (talk) 01:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- You keep mentioning conspiracies in the AFDs, but conspiracies require two or more people working in concert. No one has said they think the nom's motivations are coordinated with anyone else. The nom's edits DO look pretty unusual and his reaction to the issues DOES look suspicious as well. If not to you, then fine, but there appears to be a few people who have been here a very long time that feel the pattern is "suspicious" at best, based on their experiences. Feel free to disagree. PHARMBOY (TALK) 01:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- Well, 'keep mentioning conspiracies' is a bit of an overstatement. What, I mentioned it twice? And in the same context. See, when someone accuses someone else of bad faith without ever addressing the content of the question, I think that's a little fishy. These articles should be able to stand on their own, no matter the 'faith' of the AfD nominator, and I don't think they can. BTW, I don't even disagree with you on that matter (and am curious to see where it goes), though I disagree with you on the value of the content of the article. Take care, Drmies (talk) 02:24, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- I'm just saying keep a sharp eye out, that's all. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 02:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- Keep COI alert. As the subject of the article, I can only advise that much information has in the past been removed from the article, but that the (minor) notability is there for those who bother to search. This seemed to have been agreed to at the first AfD... and my career has not stood still in the last 10 months. Naturally, WP:COI prevents me from adding them myself. But I have to ponder upon what throw of the dice had a new account's very first edit ever, within mere moments of the account being created, be a nomination of an article for deletion rather than tagging it for expansion and improvement. And further, why was it that this nom only began editing other articles after it was pointed out that it seemed to be a WP:SPA by CC above? At another AfD, when this was questioned, the nom responded as a very seasoned editor, sharing his understanding of guideline. Did the nom not read WP:ATD? Schmidt, 02:21, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- Note on notability. Nothing personal here, Mr. Schmidt, but after I found nothing via Google (nothing besides mere mention of roles, no reviews, etc.), I looked at the references in detail. I believe it was claimed on the talk page that sources had been deleted? If they were stronger than the ones that are there now, that would help. But as I judge it, none of the thirteen references in the article confer notability upon the subject (with apologies for the length and detail of the section below):
- 1. Celebrity link: a portal page that does not actually have any kind of information on subject.
- 2. Trailerfan.com: pretty much the same kind of page, but this time including a list of movies subject was in--but no information, no reviews.
- 3. Craniumcandy site: first page for Naked Shadows does not mention subject; he's only mentioned halfway down on the page with the cast.
- 4. Trailerfan just proves that Naked Shadows exists. Clicking on proves that subject was in it.
- 5. Getamovie proves probably less than the Trailerfan link for Naked Shadows.
- 6. PR.com is an industry inside-site, which only testifies that subject was in Fear Ever After.
- 7. Fearnet site does not (any longer) mention movie subject was in, let alone subject.
- 8: a link to Amazon, to the entry for a film that subject was in. That's proof that subject was in it, not evidence of notability.
- 9: online review at a pulp fansite, that mentions subject, but does not address subject's performance.
- 10: CBC The Hour--a blog of sorts, with a video from Youtube and four sentences by a poster (and two comments thereon).
- 11: LA Weekly--dead link.
- 12: A page on Lycos Retriever, with one sentence mentioning the subject being on a show--but this is retrieved from Misplaced Pages, and thus doesn't count.
- 13: A link to a poster with subject's picture on it--a one-time show that apparently received no other coverage, or it would have been sourced. Drmies (talk) 03:03, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- A note on a note on notability (there should be a law in the English language against intros like that).
- The sources mentioned are there to back up the basic facts. They accomplish that. Each and every site need not confer notability.
- A dead link simply means the page is no longer active. Good catch, but that doesn't mean the information isn't out there.
- Google is inherently unreliable for the purposes mentioned: "Hit counts have always been, and very likely always will remain, an extremely erroneous tool for measuring notability, and should not be considered either definitive or conclusive."
- Keep Notability is there. The individual is part of a series with a cult following. A simple, sourced, two-paragraph background on said individual is not unreasonable. Addressing the nominator's objections
- "...whilst multiple sources are provided..." indeed they are. There are far more sources here than in many other articles. That, in and of itself, is not justification for a keep, but does provide perspective. Personally, I'd prefer to have a fluff article that is well-sourced and reliable than a unsourced (and hence unverifiable) well-written article. I'm not saying this article is either of these, but that's my POV on the subject.
- "...none of them actually directly discuss the subject, the majority only mentioning his name as a cast member of various projects." And therein lies his notability. If band XYZ does something notable and person A was a member of said band, the notable act perpetuates to person A's notability as a member of the band. This is not the same as person M being related to person N and therefore they are notable. This is a person who is notable as a member of the group.
- "Based on this any truly verifiable article would just be a list of credits, not an encyclopaedia article." Well, lists are acceptable too. Is that what you are advocating? I'm confused.
- What concerns me more is that this is an extremely suspicious nomination. The individual making it seems to have no other edits. Despite my past with CC, I have to agree with him on the subject and this nomination seems odd at best. It does not address anything in the previous nomination as to the reason it was kept. Why should we delete it now? Consensus didn't change. — BQZip01 — 03:06, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- Response--I don't know if I'm responding to Anonymous or to BQZip. Either way: WP guidelines on notability pretty much all include the word 'significant'--"significant roles in multiple notable films etc.," for instance, and "significant coverage", where "'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail." Well, none of these references address the subject in detail. Maybe subject was a part of one 'series with a cult following'--OK, but 'cult following' pushes this to the fringe, and really, subject was such a tiny part that he is barely mentioned in any coverage on the series. Google hits are not a good measure? But the absence of Google hits is meaningful. Right, one is a dead link, but I searched that site, and subject cannot be found. The information may be out there, sure, well, go find it. I looked, I can't find it. BTW, notability does not confer so easily from band XYZ to band member A--and calling subject a band member is really overstating his importance in these projects. So: what these 'references' prove is that subject played parts in these movies--and? How were those roles significant (according to reliable, third-party sources), even if those projects were significant? As for laws on English language usage--I'll not address that comment, since I'm only an assistant professor, and I assume my critic outranks me. I do note that that critic says, facetiously or misleadingly, "Each and every site need not confer notability." True, but in this case not a single one of these sites confers notability. MQS, keep the faith, I'll go rent one of those movies you were in, but I won't vote for keeping the article. And in reference to the 'Keep' vote that came in while I was typing this: there ARE no articles on subject, except for this Misplaced Pages article. Now, is it elitist that there are no articles written about MQS? Drmies (talk) 03:45, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following meets at least a minimal criteria.
- As for the comment on English, I hate the English language and I'm a native speaker. I'm sure you know far more about the subject than I.
- That you found no articles on google does not mean articles do not exist. My point was the limitations of google, not your personal limitations (whatever those may be).
- Please realize that large swaths of this article have been deleted. Please review the history and you will see that this person at least meets the minimal criteria. Those sections deleted may or may not sway you. If they contribute, please bring them back.
- Missing citation: I have two articles that I was a main contributor that were featured on the main page. I understand that sources are important. Web links also go bad. This link was active and they have since deleted the content. It was there at one point. — BQZip01 — 04:51, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- "Basic Guidelines of Notability (persons): If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability. Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject."
- Okay... though trivial coverage of a subject "may not" {does not say can not or must not) be sufficient, one can logically conclude that an overwhelming amount of trivial and "less than trival coverage" may then be sufficient. And yes, primary sources are available to support the content of the article, but were removed last June and never returned, though it was within guideline to have them used and secondary sources that were also removed supported the information of the primary sources. I have had and continue to have recurring roles: 28 episodes of "Tom Goes to the Mayor" as Joy Peters or other characters, 11 episodes of "Let's Paint TV" as a model or character, 9 episodes of "Tim and eric Awesome Show" in differing roles, 6 episodes of Comedy Central's "Distraction" as a nudist distractor. Further, and with respects to the nom because the information was easily found, I have not done 'only minor roles in notable films"... as I have starred or co-starred in many others...: Snatched, Delaney, R3tual, Gurney Journey, Bill, Accidents Happen, Fear Ever After, Dead Doornails, Piggies, Redemption, Kwame World, The Three Trials, Sniper Patrol 420,Naked Shadows,Huge Naked Guy, Skeletons in the Closet, A Happy Ending, Flesh Pit, Streakers, Santa Claus VS The Christmas Vixens, Schmucks (And yes, these links are IMDB... but included here ONLY because it easier than listing all the non-imdb sources that confirm these informations. If an editor does a proper search, this films can be verified. Here are just a few of the "slightly more than trivial" sources I found... Adult Swim (regular #8), Pulp Movies,Hollywood up Close, Fluge.com, Artwanted.com, TVIV.org, TVign. Also, the LA Weekly art critic who wrote the LA Weekly article has me on his website. Sorry... it's technically a "blog", but its the art critic's own site and its his own opinion as was originally shared in the now dead-linked article. Some non-wikipedia "wiki-type" sites I found include: Celebrity Genius (paragraph 11), Mcomet, Seventy MM, MetaJam. And here's just a few of the many non-imdb filmologies: Filmpedia, Filmklub, Mooviees, Mr Movie. I was surprised at the results of my 45 minute search... I guess some folks do like my growing body of work. Schmidt, 06:35, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Not yet a has been, not a never will be and certainly as notable as most silent movie actors who have articles and much more notable than most places that have articles. (Come on, folks the High School that Ed Roth attended or a small neighborhood that was "one of the few areas in Orange County where non-whites could own real estate prior to 1948"? Let's try a little perspective, an assumption of Good Faith and drop the elitest attitude.
- Not an accout created recently and certainly old enough to recognize an unreasonable attitude by people who would register just so that they could oppose a person's having an article. That makes the subject notable per se.
- Delete. I think I've waded through all the filler citations in this article and still don't see anything that qualifies as non-trivial coverage by reliable third party publications. The masses of blogs and IMDb links really don't equate to notability, sorry. JBsupreme (talk) 08:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)