Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric Hennig (2nd nomination)

Add links
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 delete. Michig (talk) 07:12, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Hennig[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Eric Hennig (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find significant media coverage. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:13, 27 December 2013 (UTC) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:13, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Media coverage!?? Google him and that's all the pops up! I got his autograph at San Diego Comic Con last year. I love Eric! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.199.188.16 (talk) 01:10, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 01:16, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 01:16, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above! He wouldn't have a verified twitter account if know one knew who he was. LOVVVVE ERIC! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.199.188.16 (talk) 01:20, 28 December 2013 (UTC) striking comment, user already made one and there's no reason to try and masquerade around here Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 02:01, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. With only very minor or uncredited roles, he fails WP:NACTOR. His career is only starting, so it's WP:TOOSOON. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:54, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt. His roles are all fairly minor- his one big claim to fame was an uncredited role on the first Hunger Games movie so that doesn't really show that his roles were so notable that they'd be kept on that basis alone. Getting an invite as a guest to a big con doesn't give notability in and of itself. It can make it easier to gain notability, but it doesn't really count towards notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:42, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm altering my argument slightly to argue for the salting of this article. It looks like this is the third time this article has been created. The previous two times it was speedied, so I think that salting this to prevent further re-creation would probably save some time in the future. Until he receives an absolute breakout role (his uncredited role in HG is far from breakout), this would be better off salted because I predict that it'd probably get re-created within a few months. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:02, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Although I agree with the above comment that he seems to have just started a few years ago, while researching him I was able to find numerous press releases, tv interviews with news stations promoting work and I also came across a charity he did with an organization called "Normal" with charitybuzz.com. It looks like he auctioned off a lunch date with him and the funds raised went to an anti-bullying campaign. If he wasn't notable I don't think someone would of paid $550 to have lunch with him. I believe my findings show the general public does have an interest in him. [1]Entertainment4u2013 (talk) 19:30, 28 December 2013 (UTC) — Entertainment4u2013 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep. This page meets the requirements stated by wiki WP:NACTOR. As stated in WP:NACTOR.one of the traits that makes an actor or actress notable is: "Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following". This actor has a verified twitter account with 27,000 followers. While looking at his twitter account it appears his most recent tweets all have been retweeted, commented 30-50 times each. A verified twitter account alone doesn't make a person notable but it shows they have a large enough fan base that they have to be verified. Which does make a person notable according to the requirements WP:NACTOR.[2]Runner247 (talk) 20:03, 28 December 2013 (UTC) striking a blocked sockpuppet Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 18:27, 30 December 2013 (UTC) [reply]
  • The thing about a cult following is that 27,000 followers on Twitter isn't considered a cult following that would keep an actor. Given that it's been proven in the past that people can buy followers on social media sites or just outright create them themselves, we really never count social media numbers towards notability unless the numbers are so astronomically large that they've gotten notice in reliable sources such as a news article. In other words, a person has to have a cult following along the lines of the Bronies, Twihards, Beliebers, or RHPS in order to qualify under this and there must be news sources that report about the fanbase. What isn't said outright but very much implied in the "cult following" requirement is that if someone has a fanbase of that size, the entertainer/show/etc will pretty much have already had a ton of coverage in reliable sources. So no, a Twitter account can't make anyone notable just by numbers alone. Now as far as the amount of money brought in an auction, that doesn't prove notability either. It just shows that he took part in an auction for a good cause, something that already makes people pre-disposed to pay more for a date since they know it goes to a good cause. I'm fairly certain that if we looked at any given charity auction of this nature, we'd find that many good looking men and women got that amount of money fairly easily- and without actually being anyone other than someone that signed up. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:11, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I see no reliable sources which cover this person, and the Keep arguments fail to address the fact that he has not been covered in reliable sources and has not had many major roles. Also, I have opened a sockpuppet investigation related to some contributors above: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Entertainment4u2013 Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 23:34, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – The above user, Runner247, made what I feel was an attempt to canvass me here (they didn't even have the competency to post in the right location). Just thought I'd make the nominator and closing admin aware of that. I was going to open a sockpuppet investigation but Taylor Trescott got there first. Lastly Eric Hennig tweeted about the AfD discussion here which won't help matters in terms of SPA accounts. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 23:51, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I came across this page and I happen to see this article about him written by the Hollywood reporter.. Not sure if that qualifies him or not? [1]66.87.72.224 (talk) 02:42, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I just removed everything that can be considered self published/edited (one of the sites anyone can edit thier profile on) or unsourecd- not much left in the article, really I think I have had more media coverage. Murry1975 (talk) 03:38, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Looks like he's posted something on his Twitter account as well, so I'm posting this here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:20, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This guy has obviously accomplished nothing noteworthy, and has obviously spent a lot of time promoting himself online to stroke his own ego. Allow me to point some things out:
  1. On his IMDB page, six (6) out of his eight (8) finished project are "uncredited", meaning he was not listed in the credits or on IMDB by a producer of the project. Instead, the owner of the page, who is likely Eric Hennig, added the credit himself. There are times when performers are legitimately not credited in movies, usually when they're non-featured extras. But literally seventy-five percent of his IMDB page is stuff he just added. That just screams like he's trying to promote himself.
  2. Of the two (2) completed credits that are not self credited, one of them is a poorly produced YouTube series titled "How to Kill a Pitch", which still has not received the five votes needed on IMDB to be rated. And the other is the non-notable made for TV movie, "Game Time: Tackling the Past", in which he appears to be credited as an extra.
  3. According to IMDB pro, his "Star Meter" ranking is 49,442. This means that this week there have been close to 50,000 actors who have had their page viewed more times than he has. This is FAR from notable. My own Star Meter ranking hit 8,771 once.
  4. The "interview" that people keep talking about online was done by a fan website for the Hunger Games. In the interview he was presented as an extra ("non-speaking game maker"). This non-notable fan website thought it would be fun to interview an extra who was on the set of their favorite movie. It doesn't mean he's notable.
  5. In regards to his Twitter page, people can buy fans. I've noticed this to be a trend amongst young beginning actors. I have a feeling this is the case here due to many of the same fans appearing on other pages of people that I know who have used the service. It could be a coincidence, but I doubt it.
  6. The ip addresses of the people claiming to "love" him and who have his autograph resolve to Missouri, where he lives. The same ip address also posted several comments on this page claiming to be different people. I have a feeling these comments are written by Hennig, himself.
In short, Hennig's IMDB page has ONLY verified that he stared in a poorly produced YouTube series and as an extra in a non-notable made for TV movie. It appears as if Hennig has spent a lot of time trying to promote himself online, and I feel as if this wikipedia page is just one attempt at that. I suggest his page be removed.
And if you're reading this Hennig, and I'm sure you are, devote your time to improving your acting craft if you're serious about making it in the industry. Professionals can see through what you're doing; you're only going to embarrass yourself by keeping this stuff up. I've been in the industry for 35 years. Trust me. We see you kids all day long. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MichaelChann44 (talk • contribs) 04:57, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I formatted this a little to make it a bit more clear. I didn't change the opinions or the wording in the slightest. It was mostly just to make it easier to read for myopic people like me. And as someone who has seen similar stuff in the literary world, I can second this sentiment that stuff like this doesn't accomplish anything. I've seen authors humiliate themselves by doing stuff like this in general, so if the claims are true, you're not doing yourself any favors. Or the actor, if this is a fan doing this on his behalf. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:31, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • And my thoughts on the Twitter account are correct. According Twitter Audit, a website that calculates how many of a person's Twitter followers are "fake" ("fake" meaning accounts known to be operated by robots, or inactive accounts), Eric Hennig only has about 2,500 real Twitter followers, meaning 90% of his 20,000+ followers are fake. You don't get 18,000+ fake accounts following you on accident... Here's a link to the screen shot I took of Hennig's Twitter Audit.

This should be closed now. We've confirmed that he's appeared as a non-speaking extra in a few things (most of which he wasn't notable enough to even be credited for), and has been in a YouTube video. His claim to fame is "Hunger Games" in which he plays one of around twenty non-speaking people who sit around a table and pretend to control the game for a few shots. And now we know he only has around 2,500 "real" Twitter followers (I have more and I'm far from notable).

  • Delete There is obviously little about Hennig that is actually of note. Even IMDb doesn't attribute more than one or two credits to him. This actor may be notable in the future, but stuff like this suggests that the Wikipedia page is mostly for showing off. Epicgenius (talk) 17:43, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is spam, obviously the actor is not that famous, and as the Audit show most of his followers are bogus. Rising actor with no significance roles. Delete and salt, to prevent recreation by Hennig. Beerest 2 talk 03:52, 1 January 2014 (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.
  1. ^ http://www.hollywoodchicago.com/news/19969/hollywoodchicagocom-hookup-40-pairs-passes-pitch-perfect-anna-kendrick
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Eric_Hennig_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1137831599"