Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erik A Williams

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. --Core desat 04:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erik A Williams

I can't find evidence that this person meets the notability guideline; he has appeared in several films, but apparently in very minor roles, and my googling didn't reveal any independent sources, though someone else may find something I've missed. Previous AfD resulted in deletion FisherQueen (Talk) 17:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleteper nom. The guy is an extra in second-rate movies, so are a thousand other people that fail to meet WP:BIO as well. Trusilver 18:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not pass WP:BIO. On a side note, though this is not solely a reason to delete, but it appears the main editor of the page is Erik Williams himself --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 18:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It's certainly an additional piece of evidence in support of deletion as that it also suggests WP:COI issues. Trusilver 18:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I sincerely do not want to seem like a jerk but this is seriously ridiculous! I should not have to prove the validity of my being notable to ANYONE nor should anyone else. I realize that the policy of Wikipedia is to keep people from creating vanity pages but I certainly have notable credits on notable productions and no one has thought it necessary to put my page up for deletion until just recently when the D.P. for All Night Production Studios attempted to submit a page for that (perfectly legitimate and notable) company. I'm not sure how I'm supposed to prove that I'm "worthy" of being on wiki but I'll try to throw some things at you here: 1) The film "Abbey of Thelema" (in which I have a supporting role) has an appearance by Ron Jeremy as well. 2) I have a lead as the part of Max in the film "Gameheads" which is now running the national festival circuit (no you won't be able to find it via a google search yet because it's yet to premiere but will very soon and all over the place). 3) Although it was only a part as an extra, I do indeed appear in the party scene in Bruce's mansion in "The Dark Knight." I don't suppose you consider that film to be "second rate" do you? The credit is not yet on IMDB because Warner Bros. wishes to keep the main cast up without extras until closer to the release date. 4) You know who Jason Mewes is don't you? Sure you do. But if you look at his IMDB credits, you'll notice that although he is very notable, all the films he's been in have been "cult films." So if you're using that as your criteria, than either I am perfectly legit or Jason Mewes is most certainly not legit. Thanks for reading.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Erkman27 (talk • contribs)

Reply The notability guidelines are here, which explain how we decide which actors we need articles about on the encyclopedia. You and Jason Mewes are both actors in a limited number of cult films. Jason Mewes is notable because many independent nontrivial sources have written about him. If you're as notable as he is, then you have also had independent nontrivial sources who have written about you-- this would be a perfect time to link us to those articles, because that's what is needed to show notability. But the right thing to do would be to allow the article to be deleted, and wait for one of your fans to write an article about you instead; writing an article about yourself is a violation of the conflict of interest guideline. I think I'm pretty awesome, but I would never write an article here about myself; I'll wait until there are enough independent sources for one of my many admirers to write one about me. -FisherQueen (Talk) 20:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. Per FisherQueen's original nomination, there are no independent sources that assert notability. And you are right that you shouldn't have to defend your own notability because you shouldn't be doing it to begin with. The fact that you have made more than half of the substantive entries into the article is itself proof of a WP:COI problem. Trusilver 21:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply.I personally know Erik A Williams and he is a very reputable actor who, whether you believe it or not, has been in a great number of movies and has had a wide variety of roles. The fact that Erik A Williams has his own Imdb (Internet Movie Database) page makes me wonder how you have the right to delete him out of Wikipedia. If you are suggesting that this page was written by Erik himself, maybe you as an editor and administrator should have taken a better look at this when it was created. I find it a little ironic that his page came up for a possible deletion when he was mentioned in the creation of a film page. I seriously hope that this is not a biased, upcoming encyclopedia, for I think that if word made its way around about this, many people would be skeptical about creating a page for something that may or may not be true.

Multiple, independent, nontrivial sources are the way we verify that information in articles is true. Without such sources, we can't verify that articles are accurate. That's why we don't have articles which don't include reference to multiple, independent, nontrivial sources. That's what keeps us unbiased. You, on the other hand, have not made a single edit which wasn't focused on promoting yourself or your friends. That makes you very deeply biased. -FisherQueen (Talk) 22:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just having an IMDb listing is not proof of notability; heck, even I have an IMDb listing! and I'm certainly not notable enough for an article. --Orange Mike 18:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply An individual is most certainly capable of writing something from any viewpoint he or she chooses. Check out a novel sometime. That viewpoint can and in this case is unbiased. I really do not like this type of Orwellian oppression that you folks are using.Bethaltohistorian 22:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)bethaltohistorian[reply]

It sounds like you are not arguing that Erik Williams meets the criteria at WP:BIO, but instead, you are arguing that the criteria themselves are not right, and should be revised. If you want to work on revising the criteria, you should do that on the discussion page at the notability guideline page, not here, where we're just applying the criteria as it now is to an article. -FisherQueen (Talk) 22:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1)I have added a link to an article in the Alton Telegraph about "Gameheads" and myself. 2)FisherQueen, I understand that you are trying to defend the policies of Wiki but seriously, don't you dare start circling around our discussion here with easy, , vague, blaise statements like "If you want to work on revising the criteria, you should do that on the discussion page...etc." You and me both know this isn't about the what wiki should or shouldn't change. It's about denying people the right to have their work on here just because they're not Tom Cruise or Nicole Kidman. I'm sorry but that's bullsh** and you know it!(Talk) 17:50 28 June 2007 (CST)

Thanks for the link. Erik Williams is only mentioned once, very incidentally, quite late in the article. Has anyone ever written an article about Erik Williams? Are there two or three articles that have Williams as their primary subject? Do you seriously think that Tom Cruise wrote the article about himself- or that he's pleased with what it says? -FisherQueen (Talk) 23:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added two more links: 1 from the producer/co-director of Abbey of Thelema and my publicity page on my IMDB profile.

Those are both PR, not writing from independent sources. Has any newspaper or magazine on the planet ever written an article about you? -FisherQueen (Talk) 23:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are many, many newspaper articles that I have been the subject of from all over the place but only the two that are listed on my publicity page on my IMDB profile have had links online. The one for The Telegraph is the only one that still currently exists online. If you go to my IMDB profile, though, you will see the proof of the article in the Centralia Sentinel dated April 20, 2007 by Monica Seals.

Now we're talking. Even if your sources aren't available online, I've seen people upload scanned versions to verify notability. You'll need more than just the one, but if there are many, many articles, just choose the two or three that best explain why you're an important and significant actor to scan, stick them on free web space somewhere, and link here to it. I understand that'll probably take you a day or two, and that's fine; nobody's going to close this tonight, I think. -FisherQueen (Talk) 23:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All of the news articles I have are at my permanent address in Centralia, IL and I cannot retrieve them until at least the first week of next month because I am currently on location in Edwardsville, IL filming the indie feature "Jealousy."

KEEP Wikipedia should be inclusive not exclusive. I am a firm believer that most bios should be allowed to remain. All bios need is sources and a minimal standard of notability. The larger Wikipedia is the best of a resource it is. One million articles is much better that one hundred thousand articles. It should be a source of information on the most trivial matters to the most important. Callelinea 04:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Admin note that this editor has made the same comment on every article nominated for deletion on the 28th. Plus, with the fact that he was making one comment every minute or so, it suggests he wasn't reading the article and the afd's before making the comment. but rather basing it only on an inclusionary agenda which is counterproductive to reaching consensus. His last edit was two minutes before this one... I'm a fast reader but I can't read an article , check references, read the AfD and do everything neccessary to make a qualified decision on an AfD in ten times that much time.Trusilver 04:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I am wondering why this warning of deletion came up after his name was mentioned on the failure to launch a page for a film. ANPS Cinematographer 05:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)ANPS Cinematographer[reply]

Reply. Just because an article about someone who is entirely non-notable managed to avoid detection for a while doesn't mean he gains de facto notability. I was wondering why I have noticed two new accounts formed in the last 12 hours whose entire purpose "just happens" to be to argue about this AfD. Trusilver 07:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, See Also WP:FISHING. There are hundreds of articles here at Wikipedia that don't meet relevant policies and guidelines but nobody has gotten around to reviewing them yet.--Isotope23 15:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Aside from the major conflict of interest, I see no non-trivial independent third-party sources yet, and the subject simply does not pass WP:BIO. Having an IMDB page connotes absolutely, positively, NO assertion of notability whatsoever. The third key grip on a 1932 movie will have an IMDB entry. Actors whose only credits are "Man in Car" have IMDB entries. People with no credits at all have IMDB entries. --Charlene 07:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Charlene. According to IMDb, the subject has had only one of his movies released yet, and that one went direct to video without a general commercial release. His only other credits in released projects are one episode of a television comedy and an appearance on a talk show. He may have a lot of movies coming in the future, but either those films are not established as notable yet, or he is only an extra in them (as is the case for The Dark Knight), or possibly both. The reason he has an IMDb page but should not have a Wikipedia page yet is that the IMDb and Wikipedia are different types of works with different criteria for inclusion, as explained by Charlene. --Metropolitan90 07:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What is missing here is multiple, non-trivial coverage of the subject per our biographical article inclusion guidelines. I'd wager a guess that the subject has a very good chance of meeting the guidelines in the future, but right now this article is premature per said guideline.--Isotope23 15:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP If you think that he is on his way to becoming eligible, you might as well leave him and forget this stupid headache. If you delete the article, it will eventually just come back. Don't be stupid. If he's not famous yet, someday everyone will know the name Erik A Williams! Twfora 19:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This user's only contributions have been to a deleted article about the company producing Williams's current film. -FisherQueen (Talk) 20:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If I was Erik A Williams, I would not be worried about having an account on Wikipedia. While in school, I was given the task to write a number of research papers all with NOTABLE sources in my Works Cited page. The criteria for this was to use books, encyclopedias, and the internet. The one thing that I found was that everyone one of my teachers would not allow other students or myself to use .com sites or Wikipedia because it was not NOTABLE enough. So when administrators try to argue whether or not each individual entry is NOTABLE enough or not, maybe they should instead look at the reason and/or reasons why they themselves are not NOTABLE enough to be considered relevant for sources of important writings.ANPS Cinematographer 20:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)ANPS Cinematographer[reply]

Comment. I find it fascinating that four of the user names that have taken part in this AfD have had absolutely no contribution to Wikipedia except for promoting this non-notable actor and two of them seem to have been created for the sole purpose of objecting. I certainly wonder why that is. Trusilver 23:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I find it facscinating that you, Trusilver, have nothing better to do than bash me and the people trying to help me. Whether some just created a profile or not, there are people coming to my aid which is quite the opposite of "smelling of a problem." I have friends, colleagues, and peers in the industry who are willing to defend me because they have no doubt that I am more than "notable." I am not trying to be vain, I am not trying to simply "get my way" or anything of the sort. Some things are justifiable simply because they are what they are. I am important and deserving of a wiki entry whether I have one credit or a million "non-notable" credits. The fact that I have people coming to my aid should prove that. This is not simply my opinion. It is an immovable fact, beyond policy, by-laws, or terms of service. It is right and just and far beyond what any of you can argue, discuss, or fight about. I hope each and every one of you know what it is to feel insignificant, to know that your life means diddly squat to every other person on the planet. Only then can you understand what I'm talking about. If you think you've experienced that, think again, because to know that feeling is to stop arguing to have me off wiki and to let me have my page the way it is.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Erkman27 (talk • contribs)

Are you serious? I was going to try and defend E. Williams after I saw his post on myspace asking his friends to help save his Wikipedia page, but after reading all these arguments, I'm afraid I now have to disagree. Your acting like the admins. of Wikipedia are personally attacking you or something. I mean, look sure you've done a lot of stuff and I know you're trying to make it all, so go DO THAT instead of spending all this time and energy with this stupid argument. This is not a personal attack against you, you are not some kind of martyr, this wikipedia page is not going to make you a better actor or advance your career, it is just another thing for you to list on your resume. Big deal. Is your self-esteem so low that you need verification from a stupid website to validate your existence as a person or an actor? If so, them maybe THAT's something you should work on. If you want to be "notable", then go out and SHOW them you are, rather than whining and trying to convince them you are. Come on Erik, you're better than that.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Runrabbit (talk • contribs)

He is "notable" now, look at the Hollywood Reporter Production Charts. "Jealousy" is there, and he is one of the two main actors. Look also at the two other articles cited at the bottom of his page. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.188.31.4 (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on sourcing Reviews from hometown papers are not exactly reliable sources for articles like this; notes or passing comments in articles are not significant either. This isn't the rule for this article alone, it's the rule for every article. I recognize that people with many smaller roles may not get large notices, but it is necessary to show that someone authoritative enough to get published in a reliable source does think that you are important and says something to show it.DGG 01:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Wow...Whoever wrote the article about Erik making himself notable makes me laugh..I think he or she should go back and read what they wrote. You are trying to tell Erik to go make himself notable, yet it is obvious that he already is. Also, I never saw that posting of Erik's so-called " cry for help" and so yea, maybe I am just a third-party person coming to defend someone who I believe should be given the chance to be on this site. No, Erik's life and career does not depend on this page but then again what does it hurt if it's on here. The purpose, as I thought it was, is to build up an account of more things in more categories than any other encyclopedia out there. If all these administrators seek out and take off pages they don't see as "Notable," then what are the chances of building up the information. Erik is not the biggest deal in the world but neither are you and therefore I do not believe you have the right to take him off if you are no better than he is. First rule...don't judge others!!! Another thing, if you really want to build up your information stockpile, I would consider being a little nicer because when people, such as Erik, do make it big in the world and start having things written about him, I think that he will remember what he went through and deny others the ability to post something about him on your site. Like the saying, "what goes around comes around" and if you don't watch yourself, this may come around and bite you later on. Just a word of wisdom. ANPS Cinematographer 01:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)ANPS Cinematographer[reply]

To those of you who have fought against me, thank you, I have now possibly lost two friends because of your ignorance. To those of you who have fought alongside me, thank you, for you do not realize how honorable you have been. My final thought is this: I'm done fighting. Delete me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erkman27 (talk • contribs)

Right now, I'm going to quote rule 12 of the Simplified Ruleset:

Ignore all rules - rules on Wikipedia are not fixed in stone. When a rule seems wrong, and it prevents you from maintaining or improving Wikipedia, ignore it.Bethaltohistorian 08:49, 30 June 2007 (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.