Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Q. Schmidt (actor)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. An interesting discourse - and certainly somewhat novel in that it incorporates the comments of the subject (whose opinion I also welcomed during establishing my view of the consensus - welcome aboard)--VS talk 22:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Q. Schmidt (actor)

Michael Q. Schmidt (actor) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Disputed prod, questions about this actor's notability. Procedural nomination. UsaSatsui (talk) 08:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep He has been in over 200 film and television projects and seems to backed up by references. Appeared in numerous notable films. Can't see the problem here. M♠ssing Ace 09:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak delete unless primary claim to notability, playing the Mountain Troll in the Harry Potter series, can be confirmed by independent coverage. The rest of this is just puffery for minor and fleeting roles. --Dhartung | Talk 10:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete, seems to be nothing more than a moderately successful bit-part actor. Lankiveil (talk) 11:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC).
  • Delete - Vanity page was created by Schmidt and edited by his sockpuppets to bolster his claims of notability. Article was being maintained solely with promotional material using almost entirely original research in violation of WP:AUTO, WP:OR, WP:SPAM and WP:ADVERT. Information in article is almost identical to that on his IMDB page and most of the references cited are to his personal website in violation of WP:V and WP:RS. This is one of a number of spam articles created by these accounts to promote this actor and it should be deleted first as spam and second to discourage others from using Wikipedia as a marketing vehicle for their acting resume. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 14:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Somewhat notable actor with reprising roles in several shows. See article's talk page for further information (no need to put it all here). I concur this article was initially added and updated by a registered sock and in violation of WP:ADVERT, but that doesn't make the information inaccurate. Additionally, subsequent edits have made put this article IAW WP policy and guidelines.131.44.121.252 (talk) 15:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC) (BQZip01)
  • This information is entirely promotional in nature. You have not yet provided a reason for keeping this article other than your belief that the article isn't inaccurate because it hasn't been proven so. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 15:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Many articles about an object have sources that are from a personal website. As long as they are not controversial or inaccurate, the basic facts are certainly citable from that source. It certainly could use more sources to make it better, but that is not a requirement of WP:DEL. Furthermore, I did provide other reasons on the talk page of the article and felt it very pointy to duplicate that information here, so I gave a reference. It is that simple. Please try not to read too much into my disagreement. — BQZip01 — talk 21:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - Played regular characters on several TV shows, Appeared on Jimmy Kimmel live, Penn & Teller: Bullshit!, and Distraction. Many minor roles in movies. Why is this even up for AfD? If there is a problem with the tone of the article, fix it, but there's no question this is notable. Torc2 (talk) 21:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - Schmidt has said he hired a publicity company to write this article and now requests that it be deleted. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 12:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • That's sad, but kind of irrelevant. Whatever conflict occurred in the past needs to stay there. At the absolute minimum, we know that Schmidt is notable, and that's enough reason to keep an article on him. The contents can be worked out on the article itself. Hopefully editors will treat the material with some dignity, since minor wikicrimes shouldn't prejudice Wiki's article about somebody against them. Torc2 (talk) 13:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I do not belong here on this page, but feel I need to make a progress report. Please keep in mind that since the article is about me, my every word is suspect. I can not be expected to have NPOV because of COI. However, Cumulus Clouds and I have been having a very reasonable discussion on my talk page (feel free to visit) where he has granted that I may be notable enough to have an article on me remain on Wiki and that the article now being considered for deletion is not the same article he sent here. In his supporting the tenets of Wiki in the strongest way possible, he kept editing the article, even though he was sure it would be deleted anyway, and unfortunately turned the article something which would be a total embarrasment to Wiki. We both agreed that editors trying to confirm any possible worth would have had to check the edit hitory of the article itself and then spend all kinds of time trying to compare earlier and later versions... and it would be quite time-consuming. I am grateful that he has agreed to restore the article to what it was the day it was introduced to AfD as an aid to editors here. I have concurred with him that if editors here at AfD feel the original article was non-notable, that I would be happy to have it go.. and if editors here felt the original version did have some worth, I was willing to have it stay. I do not know when the article will be restored (however tenperary). Thank you. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 09:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Sheesh, man, you have as much right to be here as anyone. It's the encyclopedia anyone can edit, remember? Don't worry about expressing your opinions (you're more than welcome), and don't worry about us not taking into account that you're the article's subject (we will). --UsaSatsui (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
      • I said those portions could be restored with references for each of the statements being made. This is the only way to prevent it from violating any of the guidelines I cited. I see that much of the unsourced information has been returned and it is my intention to remove anything without a source in this article if it survives this AfD. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 18:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
        • Why don't you calm down and let sources come to the article when they're ready? This one is already in better shape than many other articles. Honestly, you can't go 5 words without a citation, which at least shows a good faith effort is being made. I think you need a break from this. --UsaSatsui (talk) 19:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
          • Concur with UsaSatsui. There is no need to rush this and the article's neutrality (despite its beginnings) seems to be improving dramatically. — BQZip01 — talk 21:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
          • There's 11 citations, but some of them don't even mention Schmidt; having glanced through half of them, besides the IMDB link, the most information on Schmidt we have is a sentence in "Let's Paint TV celebrates its sixth anniversary!" That's the type of pointless citations that almost prove non-notability.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Thank you for allowing me to comment. I am in the unfortunate positon of having the full attention of one very centered and extremely determined editor. Certainly there must be more important issues to deal with on Wiki than me. I fail to understand his continued interest in wishing to reduce my life to 2 or 3 disjointed or humilating sentences... in his creating a singular reality where, when he first declares something as non-notable or trivial, he may then de-construct it to make it appear to be excatly what he first claimed. I found a definition on wiki... dealing with the falseness of circular logic.... where one may state fact "A" and then remove all items that are not fact "A" in order to prove only fact "A". Is this not just the least bit self-serving and contrary to the wiki principles of NPOV and COI?
  • I am not the one who can answer this question... as the article he promises to continue de-constructing, even should it survive his having it placed in AfD in the first place, is of me ("...it is my intention to remove anything without a source in this article if it survives this AfD")... but does this mean if the article says I am an American, he has to have a copy of my passport or birth certificate? Or when the article states that I modeled for numerous facilities throughout Southern California or that I worked with artists at Disney and DreamWorks and Sony, that each sentence has to be accompanied by notarized paystubs? The fact that I appeared in a number of television shows was documeted and linked to these works at IMDb, but they had been removed (but now replaced) as well. I admit a great deal of confusion. If someone promises to remove anything that is unsourced... and has themselves shown a prior history of first removing sources and then waiting and then removing the (now) unsourced informations... where does it end? Again, and dispite protestations to the contrary or quoting of wiki guidelines in a self-serving manner to support his actions... the continued actions themselves speak even much loudly and more pointedly. I am learning... Wikipedia:Vandalism, Wikipedia:No personal attacks. No pointed malice in these actions....? I would like to be able to Wikipedia: Deny recognition but it has become too blatant Wikipedia:What is a troll?.
  • Here's a real hoot.... In reading the related article Wikipedia:Vandals versus Trolls, in the subsection "Identification and solutions", I found a comparison of 2 samples of editorial contribution... the first as being an unsourced flat statement that had been added and deleted several times as being vandalism, and the second showing that same information being returned, in proper context and with with proper cites so as to remain unquestioned. This example seemed strangely familar... something I had read earlier... so if anyone wants to have a really good chuckle at the strange twists of the universe... imagine my own surprise when I tracked it down and learned that the "good" edit was one made by someone from the L.L.King group on December 20. It does tend to put things in perspective... in that the good people do might sometimes survive the bad done by others... MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 23:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • To Cumulus Clouds:
My friends and associates Tom Arnold, John Goodman, Dan Akroyd, Jack Black, Patton Oswalt... and many, many others... all have their filmology and television projects listed in their artcles on Wikipedia, even though that same information is also on IMDB. It is included so as to be useful to Wikipedia readers. Having their informations here adds to the informative quality of their articles and acts to further the readers understanding. You removed all filmology and television from the article about me. I believe this was a bad faith edit. I ask that you undo your deletion and so reflect the true editorial policies of Wikipedia in this instance... and return the informations you removed from the article about me. The information was proper. The information was sourced. And it was informative.. all the things Wikipedia stives to be. I believe your removal is really a bit of a quibble... not keeping good faith with the spirit of Wikipedia... and yet one more attempt to de-construct the atrticle to make it as non-notable as you keep wanting it to be. Why are you so interested in making me a laughing stock here? In light of all the other articles on Wiki about actors, and the informations thet include, your deletion can in no way be defended as reflective of policy or guideline. Please return it. Thank you. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 08:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. As someone who has no interest in this article at all (I have never heard of Michael Q. Schmidt or user Cumulus Clouds, rarely watch films, have no tv, and live on a different continent) let me just suggest the truth is probably somewhere in between. The actions of Cumulus Clouds do not look to me as if they are necessarily wrong when seen in isolation. I don't know about our usual practice in this area, but it seems logical that only a very small minority of actors are sufficiently notable that Wikipedia should have an extensive filmography. So an editor who is in a hurry may be justified to remove an extremely long filmography altogether, when it's not easy to establish what is actually relevant. It is also true that there is a general problem with references to self-published sources. Cumulus Clouds removed them, citing WP:AUTO as a reason, which is sort of justified when read in conjunction with WP:COI. This kind of source may be used but is generally discouraged. Using these sources is far from being a non-controversial edit, and here they were used to substantiate the kind of claim that would be easy to spin (meeting with artists) or to fake (200) with impunity even by a relatively well-known person. WP:COI#How to handle conflicts of interest applies here, especially the subsection "Primacy of basic content policies" and its last sentence.

However, it also seems clear that Cumulus Clouds is much more interested in deleting this article in retaliation for spamming than in communicating with its subject. In a sense that's a COI for this article. The best procedure would be to handle it as such. I think (s)he should also reread WP:POINT, WP:AGF and WP:BITE. And of course WP:MASTODON. --Hans Adler (talk) 11:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

  • comment - What I know of this leads me to agree with the above. I think the first priority is to settle this AfD and then figure out how to work on the article. At the very least, the roles Schmidt seems notable enough that there is no doubt we should keep some form of the article on him. Even when entirely NPOV and sourced, the article will not look much different than it does now, so we should keep it and address the problems as content issues instead of keep/delete article issues. Torc2 (talk) 11:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Some good advice here, Mike. That section was way too long anyways. As I mentioned on my talk page, I was probably gonna chainsaw it down myself (I've been holding off on it because I want to see if we pass AFD first). Calm down a bit. There's no rush. And also keep in mind that the article will change, possibly in ways you don't like, and so long as there's no libel or invasion of privacy involved, there's not much you can do except what we can all do: work towards consensus and come up with a solution (something a certain involved party seems hell-bent on not doing, for the record). --UsaSatsui (talk) 13:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Excellent advice UsaSatsui! How about putting his filmography in a collapsable box? That way it is available for anyone interested, but it doesn't clutter up the page? — BQZip01 — talk 21:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete; the claim that he's been in over 200 film and TV projects isn't backed up by IMDB; they list 105 appearances, or about 60 if you list each TV series as just one. The credited appearance with the most votes is in 18 Fingers of Death, with 288 votes, in which he is "Buttcrack Guy", apparently not a major role. Next up is Skid Marks (film), with 78 votes, where he plays "The Very Indignant Jogger", again, apparently not a major role. (Though it may be his most major part, as 78 votes is pre-release.) He was a model for the Mountain Troll in Harry Potter and in the background of Because I Said So, and played a bit part in a number of minor movies; I don't see it as notable.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
I'll be happy to double check, but I think his website lists more, but was removed as a non-reliable source. I contend this simple fact is not controversial and Mr. Schmidt would have little incentive to lie. As such the resource can stay (furthermore, simply stating "he claims more than 200 credits..." might be more accurate then anyway. Also, IMDB may not have a complete listing. There are plenty of reasons. As for the IMDB with the "most votes", that just means the most people voted on it, not that most people liked it (IMDB is a repository of information, not a fan site, per se). As for your delete, that is your opinion and you are welcome to it. Thanks for the feedback. — BQZip01 — talk 21:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
It's not a simple fact; counts of things like that can vary greatly depending on what you count. I'm not accusing him of lying, but he certainly has motivation to be generous in what he counts. Yes, the vote count means that the most people voted on it; that's likely to correlate between films of the same era and country to gross popularity and hence notability. Virtually nobody has seen most of these movies.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
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.