Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lenny Schmidt

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 delete. Blueboy 96 04:21, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lenny Schmidt

non-notable actor Honey And Thyme (talk) 23:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and request Admin closure of a Bad Faith nomination by an account that was created only today. When the nom's apparent SPA activity was brought into question, the account began nominating other articles so as to not appear a SPA. Intersting that a new account knows how to nominate an article, but does not notify any of the contributors to said article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:03, 15 October 2008 (UTC) Okay... one actually non-notable out of the pile of nominations... but did anyone consider [1][2][3][4] might offer WP:ATD? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:23, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that it's questionable, but in this case I don't know that the article warrants keeping. Anyway, let's watch the contribs for a while and see if there are any identifiable patterns. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 00:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe we all agree on this one... — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please pardon me if the standards for actors are different, but is a single IMDB link combined with unreferenced assertions of having minor rôles in a few films sufficient to establish notability? Delete simply as a nonnotable person, regardless of the nominator's quality or lack thereof. Nyttend (talk) 03:37, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But a search finds other sources that confirm the IMDB. If IMDB informatons can not be confirmed elsewhere, than they should be used. Yes, the article only had onse source... but that does not mean others might not be available... and WP:ATD urges a proper search before nominating. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:26, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Please WP:AGF there is nothing "bad faith" about this nomination. Does the subject lack non-trivial coverage by reliable third party sources? If the answer to that is yes then the correct action is to delete the article. Period. JBsupreme (talk) 07:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JB supreme. Kittybrewster ☎ 11:11, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unsourced and nonnotable. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 15:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the article is actually a bit misleading as the subject is better known as a comedian rather than an actor. However, there aren't any reliable sources writing about him that I could find, although show annoucements were common. -- Whpq (talk) 19:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly non-notable. Someone should WP:SNOW this. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 21:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think we should hold off on SNOW for the moment considering the fact that the nom didn't bother to notify the creator of this article, nor the creators of any of the other "people with surnames starting with Sch" biographies he's nominated. I'll be letting them know shortly. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 09:01, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:59, 15 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.