Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric Hennig (2nd nomination)

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. Michig (talk) 07:12, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Hennig

Eric Hennig (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find significant media coverage. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:13, 27 December 2013 (UTC) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:13, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Media coverage!?? Google him and that's all the pops up! I got his autograph at San Diego Comic Con last year. I love Eric! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.199.188.16 (talk) 01:10, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 01:16, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 01:16, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above! He wouldn't have a verified twitter account if know one knew who he was. LOVVVVE ERIC! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.199.188.16 (talk) 01:20, 28 December 2013 (UTC) striking comment, user already made one and there's no reason to try and masquerade around here Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 02:01, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. With only very minor or uncredited roles, he fails
  WP:TOOSOON. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:54, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete and salt. His roles are all fairly minor- his one big claim to fame was an uncredited role on the first Hunger Games movie so that doesn't really show that his roles were so notable that they'd be kept on that basis alone. Getting an invite as a guest to a big con doesn't give notability in and of itself. It can make it easier to gain notability, but it doesn't really count towards notability.
  (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:42, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment: I'm altering my argument slightly to argue for the salting of this article. It looks like this is the third time this article has been created. The previous two times it was speedied, so I think that salting this to prevent further re-creation would probably save some time in the future. Until he receives an absolute breakout role (his uncredited role in HG is far from breakout), this would be better off salted because I predict that it'd probably get re-created within a few months.
  (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:02, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep. Although I agree with the above comment that he seems to have just started a few years ago, while researching him I was able to find numerous press releases, tv interviews with news stations promoting work and I also came across a charity he did with an organization called "Normal" with charitybuzz.com. It looks like he auctioned off a lunch date with him and the funds raised went to an anti-bullying campaign. If he wasn't notable I don't think someone would of paid $550 to have lunch with him. I believe my findings show the general public does have an interest in him. [1]Entertainment4u2013 (talk) 19:30, 28 December 2013 (UTC) — Entertainment4u2013 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Keep. This page meets the requirements stated by wiki
  WP:NACTOR.[2]Runner247 (talk) 20:03, 28 December 2013 (UTC) striking a blocked sockpuppet Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 18:27, 30 December 2013 (UTC) [reply
  ]

• The thing about a cult following is that 27,000 followers on Twitter isn't considered a cult following that would keep an actor. Given that it's been proven in the past that people can buy followers on social media sites or just outright create them themselves, we really never count social media numbers towards notability unless the numbers are so astronomically large that they've gotten notice in reliable sources such as a news article. In other words, a person has to have a cult following along the lines of the Bronies, Twihards, Beliebers, or RHPS in order to qualify under this and there must be news sources that report about the fanbase. What isn't said outright but very much implied in the "cult following" requirement is that if someone has a fanbase of that size, the entertainer/show/etc will pretty much have already had a ton of coverage in reliable sources. So no, a Twitter account can't make anyone notable just by numbers alone. Now as far as the amount of money brought in an auction, that doesn't prove notability either. It just shows that he took part in an auction for a good cause, something that already makes people pre-disposed to pay more for a date since they know it goes to a good cause. I'm fairly certain that if we looked at any given charity auction of this nature, we'd find that many good looking men and women got that amount of money fairly easily- and without actually being anyone other than someone that signed up.
  (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:11, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete I see no reliable sources which cover this person, and the Keep arguments fail to address the fact that he has not been covered in reliable sources and has not had many major roles. Also, I have opened a sockpuppet investigation related to some contributors above: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Entertainment4u2013 Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 23:34, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – The above user, Runner247, made what I feel was an attempt to
  SPA accounts. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 23:51, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment - I came across this page and I happen to see this article about him written by the Hollywood reporter.. Not sure if that qualifies him or not? [1]66.87.72.224 (talk) 02:42, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I just removed everything that can be considered self published/edited (one of the sites anyone can edit thier profile on) or unsourecd- not much left in the article, really I think I have had more media coverage. Murry1975 (talk) 03:38, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Looks like he's posted something on his Twitter account as well, so I'm posting this here.
  (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:20, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep, like
  talk! see 13:09, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Question How is "it's made notability and source" as per
    WP:MEAT you shouldnt canvass, especailly on social media, any such behavour can lead to blocks. Murry1975 (talk) 13:15, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]

And if you're reading this Hennig, and I'm sure you are, devote your time to improving your acting craft if you're serious about making it in the industry. Professionals can see through what you're doing; you're only going to embarrass yourself by keeping this stuff up. I've been in the industry for 35 years. Trust me. We see you kids all day long. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MichaelChann44 (talk • contribs) 04:57, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I formatted this a little to make it a bit more clear. I didn't change the opinions or the wording in the slightest. It was mostly just to make it easier to read for myopic people like me. And as someone who has seen similar stuff in the literary world, I can second this sentiment that stuff like this doesn't accomplish anything. I've seen authors humiliate themselves by doing stuff like this in general, so if the claims are true, you're not doing yourself any favors. Or the actor, if this is a fan doing this on his behalf.
  (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:31, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• And my thoughts on the Twitter account are correct. According Twitter Audit, a website that calculates how many of a person's Twitter followers are "fake" ("fake" meaning accounts known to be operated by robots, or inactive accounts), Eric Hennig only has about 2,500 real Twitter followers, meaning 90% of his 20,000+ followers are fake. You don't get 18,000+ fake accounts following you on accident... Here's a link to the screen shot I took of Hennig's Twitter Audit.

This should be closed now. We've confirmed that he's appeared as a non-speaking extra in a few things (most of which he wasn't notable enough to even be credited for), and has been in a YouTube video. His claim to fame is "Hunger Games" in which he plays one of around twenty non-speaking people who sit around a table and pretend to control the game for a few shots. And now we know he only has around 2,500 "real" Twitter followers (I have more and I'm far from notable).

• Delete There is obviously little about Hennig that is actually of note. Even IMDb doesn't attribute more than one or two credits to him. This actor may be
  notable in the future, but stuff like this suggests that the Wikipedia page is mostly for showing off. Epicgenius (talk) 17:43, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete This is spam, obviously the actor is not that famous, and as the Audit show most of his followers are bogus. Rising actor with no significance roles. Delete and salt, to prevent recreation by Hennig. Beerest 2 talk 03:52, 1 January 2014 (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.