Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike "The Godfather" Clemente

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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 17:34, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mike "The Godfather" Clemente

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

Delete per WP:ENT. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:38, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 18:12, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:04, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Yup, his meager career as an actor fails WP:ENT... but what the article does not assert is that he is producer, animator and writer for National Lampoon's Spin Cycle,[1][2] so we may have a quite decent assertion of sourcable notability apart from only considering WP:ENT. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:02, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:10, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Courcelles, and per minimum of established "fame".--BabbaQ (talk) 20:44, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

this is laughable, you do wonder if BabbaQ even reads these properly, Courcelles merely relisted this debate and made no !vote. BabbaQ fails to explain how this person meets the newly invented criterion of "fame". LibStar (talk) 09:42, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I dont know what Libstar thinks he gains by insulting other users..hmm.. Anyway I will remain civil and just say that you have said Delete to a number of articles that I have said Keep on and guess what they where Kept. And so will Joanna Yeates be soon, and that is the main thing for me;). Cheers mate.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:18, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would also suggest Libstar to refrain from responding excessively as per WP:BLUDGEON. --BabbaQ (talk) 14:27, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLUDGEON applies when someone responds to almost every single !vote in a large AfD, I am not doing it here nor is my intention to insult, could you please explain what you mean by "per Courcelles" and also which specific notability criterion of WP:ENT, WP:BIO or WP:CREATIVE this person meets. It would assist everyone and make us not think you !vote blindly, you often turn up and give a short statement and always !vote keep, more detail would be required. Thanks LibStar (talk) 14:42, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its obvious to anyone with an open mind that i ment Schmidts comment but wrot it wrong. Please stop assuming bad faith on anyone that isnt of the same opinion as you my friend Libstar. Its not attractive for a Wikipedian and not in real life either.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:19, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

this is not about attractiveness, this is about determining good arguments for keep or delete. Please explain why you say "keep per courcelles"? LibStar (talk) 15:40, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe for a moment that you meant "keep per schmidt" otherwise you would have said that in your first response. Secondly, schmidt didn't say keep but said the person may meet another notability guideline. Thirdly, assume good faith is based on what you wrote exactly, that is "keep per someone who relisted the debate". It would be assuming bad faith to assume you meant differently from what you wrote. LibStar (talk) 15:09, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heh! BabbaQ pointing out WP:BLUDGEON, when it should be that they be taking that into account, specially in the Joanna Yeates AfD. BabbaQ has responded every single delete vote, and it doesn't seems to cease the intention. Every user has a different opinion, you should be expecting that and not taking everything personally. It's not everything about you. Diego Grez (EMSIUB) (talk) 14:55, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree with above. LibStar (talk) 15:09, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly fails WP:ENT. Sources verify a producer/writer role but not indepth to meet WP:CREATIVE. LibStar (talk) 09:48, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject doesn't meet the GNG or WP:ENT. Ravenswing 14:44, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ravenswing, fails notability. Ahmetyal 16:28, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
...And Delete per above. Diego Grez (EMSIUB) (talk) 14:56, 30 December 2010 (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.