Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Schiaffo

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. Sandstein 20:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Schiaffo

non notable actor Honey And Thyme (talk) 11:47, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 22:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notability as an musican/producer/actor available with diligent searches: newsaskew.com, nyfilmvideo.com, cinemasky.com, etc. His films and his roles are being reviewed b-independent.com, "...Russin and Schiaffo, in supporting roles that parody Jay and Silent Bob, are every bit the endearing lunkheads as the characters they mock". He had the lead in an award-winning film: nyfilmvideo.com, "Idiots Are Us", 2006 best comedy feature. Article should be expanded and sourced. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:36, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment--maybe this guy is notable, and you seem to be really good at finding sources, but really, isn't that the author's job? I could easily create a dozen articles on topics for which notability could be established, but wouldn't that be MY job as an author? I think too many of these AfD discussions end up as fact-finding missions, putting the workload on everybody but the author (and see Prosfilaes' correct note below, "in the article," "evidence"). Drmies (talk) 01:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; no reliable sources in the article, no evidence of notability.--Prosfilaes (talk) 12:30, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: reliable sources showing notability do not have to be in the article, though yes... it would be wonderful. All that is required is that they be available. They are. He is. His being the lead in an award-winning film was easy to find. This AfD is flawed. Per WP:AFD, this article should have been tagged for sourcing and improvemant, not for deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:02, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That really turns every AfD into a search by editors for sources, when that job should have been done already. If you could find it easily, then the author could have found it easily too. Drmies (talk) 01:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes.., it does. But with respects to the nom, WP:AFD and WP:ATD distinctly advise a search for such sources before nomming an article... and when finding them, to have the article tagged for improvement reather than deletion. The fact that I found the sources means the nom could have too. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter. It's not the authors article, it's now wiki's article. We don't punish the author by deleting a badly sourced article on a notable topic, we damage wiki. If some other editor can save the article, that's a good thing. MadScot (talk) 02:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wish he had sourced it, too. But as notability exists, this should not have been brought to AfD. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not sufficiently notable; even new sources found on this AfD don't rise to a high enough level. Mentions on minor internet sites and niche movie reviews don't make an actor notable and would be opening the door to many other barley noticed in the profession. Shell ^babelfish 01:24, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With respects, that boat has already sailed. Wiki has hundreds, if not thousands of less notable persons with articles, and Wiki has not run out of paper yet. Starring in an award winning film gives notability. Enough "mention' in niche reviews counts, and WP:RS recognizes this when it allows that sources nust be considered in context to what is being asserted, IE: The Washington Post is not expected to write in-depth reviews on horror films and Evil Dread will not have an article on Sarah Palin. Scott Schafiro having the starring role in a award winning film is a simple assertion and was easy to verify. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 01:03, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This seems to be the policy for lines such as Wiki has hundreds, if not thousands of less notable persons with articles. Honey And Thyme (talk) 15:41, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Shell_Kinney, the sources do not rise up to the level required by our biographical guidelines. JBsupreme (talk) 15:56, 27 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.