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 Keep -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Zarnock[edit]

Michael Zarnock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Non-notable author, being a world record holder in an obscure hobby category is not encyclopedic notability, fails WP:BIO One Night In Hackney 14:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - article claims that his Hot Wheels collection has earned him "notoriety around the world" but there's no evidence for this. No evidence of major coverage by third-party sources to satisfy WP:BIO. Walton monarchist89 15:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. "article claims that his Hot Wheels collection has earned him "notoriety around the world" but there's no evidence for this. No evidence of major coverage by third-party sources to satisfy"

Evidence of notoriety is on page 65 of the 2006 Guinness Book of World Records. Obscure is a matter of opinion where as there are 15,000,000 (15 million) Hot Wheels Collectors around the globe. Mr. Zarnock gets paid very well for his appearances across the US and Canada. --Krellman |15:59, 7 February 2007

• Comment Krellman is the author of the article. One Night In Hackney 01:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Being in the Guinness Book of World Records demonstrates notability. --Eastmain 22:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Are you saying that anyone who has held a world record at any point is notable enough for an article? One Night In Hackney

• Delete as per nom. Holding an obscure record in the GBWR is dubious grounds for encyclopedic notability. Further independent reliable sources needed to show encyclopedically notable reputation. Bwithh 00:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete- just because someone holds a world record does not make them noteable, Guiness have thousands and thousands of people who hold world records in obscure things, I have a friend who holds one, but we would never dream of putting them all on. I cant see how his toy car collection has "earnt him notoriety around the world", and quoting the location of the world record in question does not suddenly make this so. TSMonk 13:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We are not here to debate the relevance of Mr. Zarnock’s status in the world of Die Cast cars. His book sales and his standing as an Icon in that realm does that by itself. It’s not just his World Record nor his collection that has brought him fame or for us to post him here, it’s the overall picture of what he is about and what he has brought to the community of 15 million Hot Wheels collectors around the world. A simple Google search will show that. If the article needs to be deleted, then so be it. He will still be the authority that he already is and others may read about him elsewhere. Marty Krellman --Krellman |11:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep 5 books published on a non-vanity (specialized) publisher, 3 minor movie roles and a minor mention in the GBWR. Individually I think each of those wouldn't be enough, but together I think it just edges over the bar. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 02:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting to gain consensus. Luigi30 (Taλk) 14:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per J.smith. Mathmo ^Talk 16:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep Meh. The Guiness record by itself is not enough, the specialty market books by themselves and buying a lot of diecast toy cars is not enough. The movie roles are not enough. But together, they tip the scale towards notability. I am really surprised there are not a few newspaper articles to cite which would make the keep vote easier and quicker to arrive at. Inkpaduta 21:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment But surely to have a number of individually unnotable acheivements in unrelated areas should not suddenly make one notable? In my mind notability is about one major/notable accomplishment, and multiple minor ones should not add up to this. Thats the way I see it anyhow. TSMonk 14:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Are there even any reliable sources for his film roles? The IMDB entry was authored by the same person who wrote this article, Marty Krellman of The Krellman Group who are also the joint copyright holders on Michael Zarnocks's website. One Night In Hackney 14:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Indeed, looking at IMDB, Zarnock's entry is also edited by Krellman, and I cant find any third party sources to varify the film roles, and very little on the books mentioned. All we DO know is that this guy holds a GWR, everything else is incredibly fuzzy. TSMonk 01:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Tough crowd…..
• Link to IMDB Movie Detour
• Link to IMDB Movie Whately
• Link to IMDB Movie Eddy’s
• Link to Newspaper Article Obsever Dispatch
• Link to Rome Sentinel
• Link to Michael Zarnock at Amazon.com

Krellman 11:00, 15 February 2007 (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.