Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Schanley

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. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 03:04, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Schanley

Tom Schanley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

non notable actor. Has had many minor roles in television (see imdb)

• Keep 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.} 00:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I believe it informs me how to nominate an article for deletion on the

• Delete--I don't see a conspiracy at work here--the actor in question obviously lacks notability, as is evidenced by the lack of external references (and I couldn't find any either). The 'bad faith' appellation is thrown around too easily, sometimes. Drmies (talk) 00:21, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The nom's very first act... before making a spelling correction... before adding a source to an article... before making a comment at a discussion... before asking a question of another editor... before themself partcipating in an AfD discussion... was to nominate an article for AfD. Not quite what is seen from a newcomer to Wiki. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:58, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This is why I struck my comment. I think it is difficult to reward what is questionable activities, and this circumstance is questionable. If the article is that bad, someone else will nominate.
  TALK) 11:44, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete The guy has done a LOT of small roles, and I was a bit surprised I couldn't find anything about him at all. 1700 ghits of blank pages and script capture pages, and nothing that was even remotely borderline wp:rs. Nothing about him interesting that even failed wp:rs.
  TALK) 01:13, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Changed to Keep after second, then third consideration. Based on argument and sources provided by
    TALK) 19:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Delete. It is consensually accepted that IMDb by itself is not enough for
  WP:BLP articles. This lacks non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications. Hence my delete !vote. JBsupreme (talk) 07:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Fails
  WP:RS. Plain and simple. Undead Warrior (talk) 11:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. Google News [1] and Google Books [2] searches demonstrate that the subject "has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions", to quote
  Phil Bridger (talk) 18:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - as pointed out by Phil Bridger, there appears to be plenty of coverage in Google news. They are behind pay walls but summaries such as "Keith MacKechnie and Tom Schanley are hilarious as a pair of card- playing, epithet-spewing racists who have a complaint and a one-liner about everything ..." indicate coverage about actor and his work. -- Whpq (talk) 19:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the
  list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:58, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Weak Keep It definitely requires {{expand}}ing, and {{refimprove}}ing but, if sources can be found that confirm the recurring roles in multiple shows than it may in fact scrape the barrel on notability and verifiability but, the article could contain both and IMDB doesn't cut it on it's own. Jasynnash2 (talk) 07:48, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per above it does need expanding, but the actor in question appears vaguely notable, and I have doubts over the motivations of the nominator. Bob talk 10:03, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per work by Phil Bridger. The JPS^{talk to me} 16:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep in the Google news link, in addition to all the 10-25 years ago acting reviews, I even found a couple listings of Tom Schanley as a script writer for upcoming feature films. He may be notable for more than just acting. Felisse (talk) 19:42, 17 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.