Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skyler Stone

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 - Since the argument is notability the sources provided at the end of the discussion are the deciding factor. Spartaz Humbug! 20:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Skyler Stone

Skyler Stone (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Please Delete Non notable. Aside from his whopping six episode stint on cable tv he has done nothing worthwhile. Aside from that the article itself is EXTREMELY poorly written, seeming as if it were composed by the subject's little brother. JeanLatore (talk) 14:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Neutral Currently the guy isn't much more than a criminal who was able to get himself on TV, the refs I could find are all blogs talking about his show and his IMDB file shows him playing the third guy from the left. My dilemma comes when I think that had this been written while his show was on the air, we probably would have accepted that as notability, and he is still working and has a film in production. Just because I think the guy's a creep doesn't mean he shouldn't have a WP article, WP:IDONTLIKEIT and all. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 15:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. Yes, however the things he is doing now per IMDB are not notable. The 2005 six-episode " Con" was his only marginally notable venture and we already have an article on that. The show was notable, the person behind the show was not, and certainly is currently not. Delete.JeanLatore (talk) 02:04, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Being badly written isn't really a reason to delete an article. I'm on my way out the door now but, saying weak keep for now. Article claims notability in various sections. And not all his roles looked "minor" but honestly haven't digested it yet. If it is still here on Monday I'll have a more indepth look. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Why are you commenting on this AFD when you admit that you hadn't even closely reviewed or thought about the article in question. I caution that the above opinion be given little weight. JeanLatore (talk) 02:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
    • I did not say I hadn't looked. I said from my non-indepth look that the article claims notability in a number of areas (which it does by pointing out at least one movie role (which is more than just 6 episodes on some tv show). I'm sorry if you took offense at my pointing out that poorly written isn't a reason for deletion and that you disagree with my honest interpretation of what is in the article. I'll gladly enter into a discussion on my talk page of my general reasoning behind bothering to comment on the AfD if you wish and you are willing to remain civil throughout any discussion. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • He is pointing out the exact same thing I would point out even prior to looking at the Article. The nom is attempting to use the quality of the writing to influence the !votes, when it clearly is not a viable reason. Leaving the faulty reasoning aside, the question becomes; Is 6 episodes enough to confer Notability? It does not matter how long ago thoes episodes were as notability is not fleeting. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 20:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

No one really has made a case for support at all after 5 days on the AFD list. I think the presumption to Delete has not been rebutted at all. Closing admin, plz. take note, thank you sir. DeleteJeanLatore (talk) 14:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

  • On the contrary, I believe it has been pointed out that there is little merit to the Nomination Rational, and no clear consensus to delete. I would presume the norm is to default to Keep in this type of situation. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 03:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comments like this indicate a lack of understanding of deletion policy. In order for something to be deleted, there has to be a consensus to do so. Celarnor Talk to me 22:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Having your own television series and references to show it assert notability. He has also appeared in other venues other than Comedy Central. Quality of the article is not particularly relevant, as that can be improved through regular editing processes. Celarnor Talk to me 22:17, 1 May 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.