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 no consensus. While the discussion is extensive, I cannot see any consensus to delete or keep. Closing as such. SoWhy 17:16, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Q. Schmidt[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
  • I'm just saying keep a sharp eye out, that's all. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 02:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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, MICHAEL Q. 02:21, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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 Wikipedia, 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)[reply]
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
    1. "...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.
    2. "...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.
    3. "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 — talk 03:06, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, band XYZ doing something notable doesn't mean that person A, who was a member of said band, is himself notable. Groups are frequently notable without all or even any of their members being notable.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm pointing out that they are notable as members of that group that is notable. It doesn't mean they need an extensive eighty-paragraph dissertation on their life story, but a stub is certainly apropos. — BQZip01 — talk 03:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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 Wikipedia article. Now, is it elitist that there are no articles written about MQS? Drmies (talk) 03:45, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    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 — talk 04:51, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The limitations of Google? If we were talking about someone that shouldn't be well documented by Google reachable sources, I might agree, but if you're claiming cult support of a modern actor, most of the major ones should be Google reachable sources.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"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, MICHAEL Q. 06:35, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, growing body of work. Maybe some folks do like it, and perhaps, sometime soon, some of them will like it enough to write real articles about it. Drmies (talk) 22:49, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NOTICE This isn't the place for a person attack, and your comments are dangerously bordering on such. Please keep it civil. PHARMBOY (TALK) 23:37, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Pharmboy, your bold and all-caps notice has been noted, loud and clear. May I just point out to you that I didn't come up with the joke, the subject did. I wish that in this AfD discussion you would also address the contentual issues I and others have raised. Drmies (talk) 01:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry you thought I was making a joke. I was not. When my life and career are being minimalized, I am very serious. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:39, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Schmidt, considering what those roles were, and considering your sometimes tongue-in-cheek tone, it seemed pretty obvious to me. I do sincerely apologize if I misunderstood you. But I have no intention of minimizing your career; I just question whether it's maximal enough to warrant inclusion on Wikipedia. I know that my career doesn't warrant me inclusion on Wikipedia; c'est la vie! Drmies (talk) 03:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.
JimCubb (talk) 03:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Huh? So you believe that notability IS temporary?? and that an article can be returned to AfD as many times as it takes to get it deleted?? This is the second AfD. Here is the article that was sent to that first AfD. During the course of that AfD... while notability was still being dicussed, it was continually being deconstructed. During the course of that first AfD, there was an effort to return the information so the AfD could have a truer understanding of the article. But still, and during the dicussions, and before that fist AfD was decided, informations were again removed... informations that had sourcing in places other than IMDB... informations that would better allow a reader to determine notability for themselves. Here is what came out of that First AfD... much trimmer... many informations removed and never returned... but still showing adequate notability (as established at the AfD). Over the next 6 months, there were improvements made to the article to further show notability. Then, over a 2 day period in June, the article was again deconstructed... first by the removal of sources that were specifically allowed by guideline, and then with the removal of the text supported by that source as now being unsourced. Other sources were removed (although there were other sources available online). Content then removed as now being unsourced. Removed though alternate sources available online. Content removed as being unsourced... removed as being unsourced. Remove sources and remove content... and remove more content... because the source is gone. Six months after the AfD had decided by consensus that the article had shown notability and could stay, here's what remained. Some of those deletions were returned over the next few days and by the end of June the emaciated article was once again sourced. But then in mid-July sources were again being removed even though they were self-supportive or allowed by guideline. Then once again, huge swathes of the article were deleted as being unsourced... with the sources removed. Very little was ever again returned, though other sources were available and improvement is always preferred over deletion. And that brings us to now, where the emaciated and as-yet-unrepaired article again sent for deletion. Notability was decided last January. Notability is not temporary. WP:NTEMP recognizes that sources may disappear, which is why it exists as part of WP:Notability. Deconstructing an article does not remove the prior notability or the consensus that made that conclusion... and does not improve Wikipedia. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 17:07, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is a lot of words about an article about yourself, Mr. Schmidt. I thought you were going to stay out of this given the obvious POV issues here. Drmies (talk) 22:49, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • When/where did he ever say that? This is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, isn't it? Nothing prevents him from editing even his own article. While certain precautions should be taken with regards to such changes and such changes can certainly be scrutinized, he can still edit his own article (even Jimbo Wales has edited his own article). Respond to the significant volume of evidence above if you must, but comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks will not help you make a point; they hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping to create a good encyclopedia.. — BQZip01 — talk 03:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are actually a few such constraints, dear BQZ: modesty, for one. I can't find fault with a given person correcting a factual error in a Wikipedia article about herself, but if such a person spends an enormous amount of time arguing in an AfD discussion that an article about herself should NOT be deleted, basically by claiming how important she is, well, what can I say. At the least I can say that content and contributor are easily mixed if content and contributor are the same. It suggests that the sources (which, despite your suggestive comment above, you haven't addressed) really don't stand up to scrutiny. For the record, I was the one who went through all the references, and I believe I have given an honest appraisal of what they are worth. Once more, those sources reference facts, existence if you will--not that subject is necessarily worthwhile. There is no in-depth coverage of this subject anywhere that I have seen, and that's all there is to it. Drmies (talk) 03:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; looking at the sources, I don't see one half-decent source about this guy. Nothing has changed since the last AfD. One or two of the links are dead, and maybe they had more, but most of the references to this article are listing of this person in cast lists. Two of them are about him, and give birth date, real name and height, and frankly I doubt they're independent, and don't for one second consider them reliable sources. We don't even really have to consider WP:Notability, IMO; the article fails WP:V hands down.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nothing has changed since the last AfD? The AfD that found the article notable and worth keeping? If nothing has changed, then whay is there a second AfD?? As BQ points out below... a whole lot has been done to the article since the last AfD where it was found notable. It was taken apart, sources, removed, content removed, and all assetions of notability removed. So at least something has changed, else it would not have been rushed first thing to AfD by an editor who never before made one single edit on Wikipedia. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:39, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • That AfD was closed wrong, IMO. Frankly, the editor who started an AfD is irrelevant, once real editors start weighing in against the article.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Respectfully, There have been over 70 changes to the article (detailed ad nauseum above). Seriously, that's what a well-researched document has: lots and lots of citations with verification for each and every claim. How on earth is anything in here not verifiable? — BQZip01 — talk 03:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    A well researched document relies on sources that speak on the subject they are being cited for; "the average Confederate solider ate 20 tons of corn over the course of the Civil War" should be cited to Agriculture in the American South, 1860-1865, not Statistics in the Modern Workforce. Again, only one or two of the sources are being called upon to speak on the subject they pontificate on; most of them are being called upon for an off-hand mention of a cast list. None of the sources are very reliable sources, nor do any of them have anything in depth on Schmidt himself; half the time, I don't even trust that they would note if Schmidt had been cut out of the final cut of the film, instead just copying what they are given by the producers of the film.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - With sincere apologies to Mr. Schmidt, at this point he is non-notable. Looking at his credits on IMDB, I see roles such as : "Sex Club Patron", "Junkyard Mechanic", "Soda Pop Drunk", "Naked Drunk Biker", "Overweight Naker runner", "Male Bar Patron" and "The very indignant jogger". I have not seen any of these films (some of which are still in production), but these are the kinds of designations that are typically given to very minor parts, with perhaps a line or two to their credit. Playing such parts can become a notable thing, if done over the span of many years, in which case it's the longevity and number which confer the notability, but at this point, about 6 or 7 years into a career, it's simply the list of credits of a minor actor. For these reasons, I have to say that not only is the subject non-notable but, more importantly, the article itself does nothing to assert notability. This is not a reflection on Mr. Schmidt, or on the quality of his work, simply an evaluation of his status at this time. Things can change, and in show biz they often change quite rapidly, so I say all this without prejudice to whether Mr. Schmidt will be notable in the future, and deserving of an article at that time. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 20:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well... in the past, the article did make such assertions, as the page history well shows... but they were removed and never returned. Naturally I could not be the one to return them. I noted in your list above, that you only mentioned the minor roles. I have worked on more than a few where I had starring or lead roles... I listed the films up above... characters with names like "Joy Peters", "Big Fat Jessica", "Fat Tony", "Cyrus", "Mister Bell", "Leo the Outfiter", "Billy Bob Barfield", "Bubba", "Texas George Gant", "Barney Stubbs, Eldon Stubbs, Jonas Stubbs" (as all three brothers in this one film, "Frank the Ticket", "Light-Fingers homeless Nick", "Hank the Nudist", "Lucky", "Santa No_Pants", "Cupid", "Larry Lajeunesse", "Father, Cabaret MC, Fertility Demon (in another film where I played three different lead roles), etal.. rather than descriptions. I have also has numerous occasions to apear simply in projects as "myself". All actors have had minor roles. Wining lead roles is difficult and competitive and very very very few background actors every rise to starring roles. I may have been asked about my lead roles at this live interview, or perhaps it was at this other live interview where I was "myself" being interviewed. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:39, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I also find the AfD nomination by a supposedly brand new user quite suspicious. Clearly User:Honey And Thyme is not a new editor, which leads to speculation that it's someone with an agenda or animus against Mr. Schmidt. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 21:13, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate the add-on. As for notability, many actors have bit parts for supporting roles, but a large volume of such appearances can make an actor/actress notable, in and of itself. I appreciate your well-rationed discussion above, even if we disagree. — BQZip01 — talk 03:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I agree that volume can make the difference - I've written or expanded a number of articles about actors from the 30's - 50's whose notability is inherent in the length of their career and the number of films they appeared in, not necessarily in the significance of any one part (although several of them also had several standout performances as well). I guess where we disagree is in whether Mr. Schmidt has achieved that status yet. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 03:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge & redirect into Let's Paint TV. He's plenty verifiable but I don't think there's enough here yet for an independent article. Oh yeah, by the way I found the broken LA Weekly link for y'all at the Wayback machine. The link[1] discusses the show and Mr. Kilduff, but not Mr. Schmidt. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 04:26, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom as lacking notability. Sorry Michael. :) X MarX the Spot (talk) 06:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (sorry Michael!) I've been through both the current version and the revision from the first AfD; it looks like the earlier revision was trimmed down for good reason. Of the many references used, about half mention the subject in passing only, while the rest don't mention him at all, and many of them don't satisfy WP:RS anyway. Concerns about the nominator are valid, but there is nothing in either version of this article that meets WP:BIO. PC78 (talk) 15:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The irritating thing about coming to these discussions while they are already in progress is realising that other people got their ahead of me and were able to get first crack at making the pithy comments. Thus, I have chant the "as per" echo -- in this case, PharmBoy, Collect and BQZip01 said it best (and first). Ecoleetage (talk) 18:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Observation I know we're supposed to focus on content and not contributor, but can someone please take a look at the person who put this article up for AfD? This individual joined Wikipedia on 14 October and this was his/her very first contribution. I know all about WP:AGF, but that concept has a fraying point and it strains credibility that someone who is supposedly brand new to this project would take the express lane to AfD and start nominating articles about actors for deletion (this is one of several served up for the chopping block). Ecoleetage (talk) 19:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Irrelevant. Focus on the comments made by experienced long term contributors. We all trust the closing admin to do the same. JBsupreme (talk) 19:10, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Feeding peanuts to the irrelevant Well, if it is a bad faith nomination by a possible sockpuppet, that point needs to be raised. Ecoleetage (talk) 19:16, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree that the SPA who is the nom has questionable motives, but that doesn't matter at this point. The subject matter *IS* notable and is sourced. Looking at the history (and the deleted stuff...) demonstrates that more can be done as well. PHARMBOY (TALK) 19:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply comment Please do not assert your opinion as fact. There is a near majority of people here who do not feel this subject is notable under the guidelines of Wikipedia. Thank you, JBsupreme (talk) 19:41, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a democracy and this isn't a vote. PHARMBOY (TALK) 21:25, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No need to apologize, as I am sure you feel that THIS is a bad article when THIS is what it began as, and THIS is what came from the first AfD. I am surprised that the "keep as notable" consensus of the first AfD is being ignored in violation of WP:NTEMP. I am even more greatly surprised that the nom decided THIS was notable for Cameron Scher and yet THIS was not for me. All I can do is shake my head in confusion. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You misinterpret WP:NTEMP. It says notability is permanent, not that consensus that an article is notable is permanent.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:54, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a little confusing to me. Don't we decide whether the article subject is notable? Articles themselves aren't notable, since they exist only on Wikipedia. However if the subject has been found notable, that notability remains. You're on record above though as being of the opinion that the previous close was wrong - so then it really is a matter of try and try again until you get the result you want? Franamax (talk) 01:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability is "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." Just because one AfD finds a subject notable doesn't mean that it is, and consensus on the matter can change. WP:NTEMP means that things aren't just notable for now, and that they things in the past are less notable than comparable things in the present.
  • Yes, it can be a matter of try and try again until you get the result you want. (Deletion isn't irrevocable, either, though.) But AfDs without a few months since the last one will usually get quickly closed, and many editors have a negative reaction to repeated AfDs; every time you see a 3rd/4th/7th nomination, you get a lot of people calling for it to be closed right off, and there's not really a lot of them.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:26, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your quote from WP:N is accurate, but JohnCD makes a point below about "how the notability guidelines are interpreted in practice". There is a whole offshoot of en:wiki, ArbCom issues with "Episodes & Characters", discussing this exact point. (Links on request, but you really don't want them :) Rather than hew to the precise wording, we instead must deal with the common interpretation within the milieu of the article. My position here is that the article (very) barely survives the threshold of indirect notability as generally applied, regardless of whether it surmounts the barrier of the precise wording in the guideline.
Note on your last point: deletion is indeed a significant obstacle, all things considered, and certainly a higher barrier than an AFD-keep, which only needs a few months 'til the next try; and the circumstances of this nom are quite troubling - the AfD must be considered on its own merits regardless of the nom, and the argument has been advanced that we could close this one and someone legitimate could file another one; but in fact no regular editor did file an AfD, instead a brand new editor with remarkable wiki-knowledge chose that course. That doesn't prevent the discussion, but it does cast it into an unfavourable light. Franamax (talk) 01:40, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll point out that everytime this gets brought up, it increases the chance there will be a third AfD. If this isn't going to be treated as a valid AfD, then we have the right to do another one without the issue of the nominator clouding the issue.--Prosfilaes (talk) 12:28, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Ecooletage's as per. On balance, I think the subject just clears the threshold Ed F. sets. Any one minor role, or major role in a minor work, doesn't confer notability (and won't get written up in a trade rag); it is the sheer number of these roles that becomes notable. I'm sure there's competition for minor parts too, the fact that the subject is able to win so many parts indicates something unique (I believe the "body style" may be a factor). So I'd say keep until we run out of WP:PAPER, at that time we can always tear this article out and write something else on the back. Franamax (talk) 23:03, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Eco, I don't really want to do per name, per name, per name... (Hmm, we have a lot of "per"[s]) RockManQ (talk) 02:51, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, suspicious nom. RockManQ (talk) 02:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm abstaining from this discussion because of extensive contact with the user who is the subject of this article. However, I find it very weird that, thus far, the nom has done nothing but nominate several actor's pages for deletion. I just wanted to point that out. --UsaSatsui (talk) 03:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even weirder, ever article he's edited is a person whose name starts with "Sch"... —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 08:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please try to stay on topic. We're discussing if the subject of this article is notable enough for inclusion. Who initiated this article and who nominated it for deletion is irrelevant at this point. Thank you. JBsupreme (talk) 09:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If sockpuppets are working the debate, then it may be relevent. I'm not making an accusation, just pointing out some patterns for others better equipped to evaluate. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 10:16, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Michael Q. Schmidt is not a sockpuppet of L. L. King. He once hired King to create an article for him, and also once edited from his office. Since then, however, he's been a legitimite contributor. And if I have the details wrong, I'm sure he'll correct me. :) --UsaSatsui (talk) 14:53, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • the only "correction" is a clarification to dismiss any misinterpretation: the (amateurish) King group was hired as publicists much as many actors hire publicists, and one of the choices they made was to write the article. I never instructed or suggested they specifically use Wiki. I apologize for their choices and the subsequent drama. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 17:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The concern is that the nominator is a sockpuppet, not Michael. PHARMBOY (TALK) 15:23, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • sockpuppet concerns Several editors have questioned the history of the SPA who nomed the article. The article has seen radical changes and paring down since the last AFD. Asking about it (in a reasonable fashion) during this AFD would be on topic. If enough were, and there was cause to think the nom was a sockpuppet, it would be reason enough for an admin to do some looking. How many new editors do you know start their editing career by noming and article, then go on an AFD rampage after being asked about it? At the very least, it looks fishy and worth mentioning, in addition to any other merits. Faith in nomination is not completely irrelevent. If it was, it would reward bad behavior. PHARMBOY (TALK) 11:51, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: OK, so what if we let this AfD slide, because too many people don't trust the nominator, and then someone else nominates it, and we can discuss the actual issue at hand, namely whether this article should be on Wikipedia at all? Honestly, I don't see how the nominator's status is relevant. If they're a sockpuppet, then ban them, or whatever, but don't let that cloud the issue of the merit of the article and the notability of its subject, because really, it might well be that muddying the waters will prevent deletion, regardless of the article's merit, or lack thereof. Drmies (talk) 16:32, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm putting my reservations aside about the new account creating an AFD (though I still think it's kinda suspicious), but the article seems to be fairly well cited. At worst, it's a borderline case of WP:N. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 18:47, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Ecoleetage and Dennis The Tiger. There are lots of articles about less notable entertainers - "reached last 10 in a talent show", etc - and yes, I know about WP:WAX, the point I'm making is about how the notability guidelines are interpreted in practice. JohnCD (talk) 19:33, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Nothing in Wikipedia says that a small time actor or actress can't have his/her biography here, if indeed he/she wasn't notable then he/she shouldn't have anything more than just being a "Stunt actor" or "Fisherman B" (remember Craig Ferguson?) mentioned when the credit starts rolling. ...Dave1185 (talk) 08:31, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment; does anyone else feel that there's serious problems when the subject of the article is preparing a DRV (User:MichaelQSchmidt/sandbox DRV Preperation) before the AfD is closed?--Prosfilaes (talk) 12:28, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No, as the Boy Scouts state -- be prepared! :) Ecoleetage (talk) 13:32, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Prudence is a virtue, and to assign anything other than prudence as the reason for the sandbox is unsustainable. Collect (talk) 13:34, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • With respects to all, I have requested a G2 deletion of that userspacee. I have never done a DRV and needed to know what was involved. I prepared my thoughts on the matter, and requested input. I received some sound advice, even from editors who have voted delete above. Point being that I have a better idea of how to prepare one, but understand now that I cannot do one for the article in question. To those who helped educate, Thank you. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 16:01, 18 October 2008 (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.
More