Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Q. Schmidt (3rd nomination)

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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, per WP:SNOW. Non-admin closure by Skomorokh 08:31, 21 February 2009 (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)

Minor character actor, with no real prominent roles. The fundamental problems from the previous noms have NOT been addressed, and simply saying WP:ILIKEIT because the subject is a Wikipedia editor doesn't exempt this from ordinary notability standards. Wikipedia is not a CV service.--CalendarWatcher (talk) 14:36, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: there also appears to be suspicious connections with an indefinitely blocked sockpuppeteer--namely multiple edits by sockpuppets--that ought to raise red flags. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 14:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CalendarWatcher, I would appreciate if you would remove the checkuser accusation, which has no relevance to this AfD. There was no evidence that the two editors are the same as Thatcher wrote:
"Unless Alison saved her previous results, L.L.King is too Stale to check. You'll have to decide what to do about MichaelQSchmidt without technical assistance. Thatcher 03:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)".
Please remove this immediatly, and I will then remove my response. Ikip (talk) 17:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'[T]oo stale to check' does NOT equal 'unrelated', as even a moment's reflexion should tell you, nor have I made any accusations. So no, I will not remove anything. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 13:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, the silence is becoming deafening, so I'll bite with a keep recommendation. Let's look at the nom rationale:
    • Minor character actor - do you want something new here? It's all been said before in the previous AfDs. Notability is established by the sheer number of minor roles; participation in a cult show; selection for a specific body-type. And as discussed ad nauseam, the notability is minor but does clear the threshold - at least until we run out of paper and have to tear this one out and write something else on the back.
    • fundamental problems - the same "problems" that have seen the article kept repeatedly? Granted of course that you disagree with the prior decisions, but what do you want? Should everyone just copy-paste in their comments from last time?
    • the subject is a Wikipedia editor - irrelevant. But since you brought it up, yes, and that editor is also an ardent inclusionist who has many times upgraded articles at risk and thus forestalled their deletion. Does that bother you? And since you're implying wrongdoing of some kind, care to back it up with some diffs? Which !votes were improperly cast in the past?
    • suspicious connections - now that is a bit of really old news. Have you actually read any of the history? It's all well explained. (Hint - there's a link here on this page that already leads to the story) And again, it's irrelevant. A SPA/sock made the last AfD nom as their first edit and that fact was deemed irrelevant then. Does socking suddenly become more suspicious when it can be used to support your own POV?
Seriously, what more do you want? The arguments to keep are the same as last time, so are the arguments to delete. Try, try again? Franamax (talk) 23:19, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Followup clarification: the "deafening silence" I refer to above appears to be due to a misformed AfD entry by the nom. I spotted this via watchlist and was thus unaware until the helpful DumbBOT pointed it out (below). As to the nom response immediately following, I am unable to discern a need to respond in turn. Franamax (talk) 03:36, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since I was completely uninvolved with--and completely unaware--of any previous AFDs, your overly long and somewhat hysterical rationale starts from false premises and really doesn't get much better. To start with, my use of the adjective 'minor' might have been a tip-off: as in 'uninfluential' or 'little impact'. Certainly no evidence has been provided of any actual impact of these alleged numerous roles nor of why the length of a CV trumps all other notability considerations. That would cover my use of 'fundamental problems' as well, whatever your ridiculing--without addressing--misses. As for the subject being a Wikipedia editor, the problems--real and potential--of vote-stacking and WP:ILIKEHIM votes should be fairly obvious, whatever bizarre strawman arguments you throw up like a squid throws out ink. And for someone bangs on about how reading the history is supposed to explain anything, you don't appear to have done the slightest bit of reading yourself, with your sputtering 'Try try again?' jibe, as I have not--once again--been involved in any aspect of this article, neither editing nor voting on any previous nominations. The fact is certainly easier to ascertain than this 'obvious' explanation for a rash of obvious sockpuppets in the edit history: perhaps you would care to provide a non-hysterical version of that story? --CalendarWatcher (talk) 13:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Calendar watcher, your tenacity and desire to improve the encyclopedia are commendable. Thanks for bringing these to the table, even if we disagree.
As for "the problems--real and potential--of vote-stacking", the only real concern should be for real vote stacking. Near as I can tell, none has occurred in this or any of the past AfD discussions. The potential for vote stacking is always present and can only be mitigated by vigilance and observation. If you have evidence of vote stacking in previous or current related AfDs, I highly recommend taking them to WP:SSP.
Additionally, as a recommendation, I'd check the talk pages of articles which you wish to delete. Most contain links to any previous AfD discussions. That might help mitigate issues with repetitive nominations. That said, if you read something and disagree with the conclusions or the article has changed (or hasn't changed), feel free to nominate it at the appropriate venue. Cheers! — BQZip01 — talk 14:37, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • So what 'significant roles' in what 'notable' films are you referring to? Being among the 'top ten' of a distinctly minor television programme strikes me as a bit like being among the 'top ten' curries in a small High Street restaurant: intended to sound significant, but signifying nothing much at all. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 13:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you were completely 'unaware' of any previous AfDs after you did all your careful research for this one before sending it up, I hardly think sharing my own opinion of what the guideline means about a cult following will mean much to you at all. Ikip (talk)
  • Keep - I'm not sure what more needs to be said. In-depth coverage in multiple third-party sources (Filmthreat interview) and significant roles in multiple notable TV shows demonstrate notability. Also, I'm hard-pressed to see how the article promotes the subject at all. It appears to be a neutral, if short, piece. TNXMan 17:43, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The sourcing is sufficient. I would have interpreted the 2nd Afd as a keep. I see this a third keep, and think that a repeated afd before ant least another year or two would be wholly inappropriate, & would start to look over-personal.. DGG (talk) 18:14, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DGG and WP:ENTERTAINER. I voted to delete last time I think, but I'm now satisfied that Michael is sufficiently notable to be recorded in the pages of enwiki. X MarX the Spot (talk) 20:26, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well the rest of us do, so y'know you're probably gonna have to live with it. If I was a suspicious minded type, I'd question your motivations with this AfD. Good thing I'm not a suspicious minded type, isn't it? Be well X MarX the Spot (talk) 21:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DGG. As far as notability goes -- he definitely does have a cult following. He's on the freaking Tim & Eric Awesome Show calendar this year and was interviewed by Film Threat. And even if many of his roles are small, he's unusually prolific, especially of late. Shatner1 (talk) 22:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I see no hysteria above, and no special pleadings, I would kindly suggest that the emotion so noted by you does not exist in this discussion, and hence does not further this discussion. Nor, moreover, have I seen a slew od delete recommendations at this point. Collect (talk) 14:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with Collect: Snow Keep. There is no hysteria and mass disagreement with the opinion of a single individual is not non-compliance with any standard. It is disagreement with your assessment. WP:CONSENSUS applies. — BQZip01 — talk 14:28, 20 February 2009 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Michael_Q._Schmidt_(3rd_nomination)&oldid=1089094236"