Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gary Schwartz (actor) (2nd nomination)

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. The "keep" arguments seem to focus on what this individual has done, rather than the one point that matters: Are there enough reliable sources to sustain an article, or not? From the discussion here, the answer to that question seems to be "no". By straight headcount this might be a "no consensus", but as we always say, AfD is not a vote, and references really aren't optional. No prejudice to recreation if someone actually can find substantial source coverage. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:51, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Schwartz (actor)[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Was AfD'd a few years ago, and while this article may be significantly different then the one that went through the AfD process, doesn't change the fact that this is simply a working actor/voice actor who meets neither WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:51, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:51, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. J 947^{'s public account} 00:24, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. J 947^{'s public account} 00:24, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - Only one significant role, and acting notability requires multiple roles. Remaining roles appear to be run-of-the-mill. General notability guideline is essentially incomprehensible in marginal cases such as this, and does not provide a case for notability. Not much has changed since the last AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 11:21, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In addition to Zoobilee Zoo, he also voiced a major character in the video game Team Fortress 2 (Demoman). So yeah, this should meet WP:NACTOR. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 14:02, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The concern for insufficient substance to meet acting notability is noted: Thank you. While the article satisfies the first element of the notability guidelines by pointing to a longstanding IMDb body of work including lead character in an Oscar-winning film, it perhaps does not adequately describe or quantify the second element; celebrity status and following among a specific fan base. The voice is well known in the gamer community and the characters are followed by an established international network of fans. So while he enjoys a degree of public anonymity because he is visually not as easily recognized alongside his celebrity peers in narrative film and television, he holds an elevated status when it comes to animated work. It is true that the article needs to better address the third element of notability; that of describing significant or unique contribution to a discipline of the entertainment industry. The focus on his work as a subject matter expert in the art of mime, improvisation and game techniques falls into this arena because it is rare and sought after, yet not fully developed in the article. As an Alternative to Deletion, I suggest that further expansion of the article content and additional citations could fully satisfy all three elements and eliminate notability concerns.Msteckl (talk) 22:35, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Oscar award-winning film he was in won its award for makup, which is totally irrelevant to his notability--and he was not a major character according to the IMdB listing. ; the Emmy award show won its award for costume design, equally irrelevant. The book is self-published--its award has no reputation for significance, and the claimed reviews on Amazon and Kirkus, which is totally unreliable for self published books, as they get reviewed only if your pay them. His work as a mime was in his very early career. That leaves the game character, and there's no indication that he has any actual notability for that. DGG ( talk ) 15:32, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Academy Awards have established guidelines as to how the work of Makeup, Hairstyling and Wardrobe relates to the appearance and enhanced performance of first-billed actors. For the Planet of the Apes Oscar, this actor was Buck Kartalian who played the gorilla Julius. For Star Wars, it was Peter Mayhew who was the Wookie, Chewbacca. For Quest for Fire, it was Gary Schwartz who was the Rouka, the leader of the prehistoric Ulam tribe. There is clear precedent that establishes the relevance of the award with the actor’s notability. Both Mayhew and Kartalian were found to be notable in Wikipedia based in part for their association with these films and the awards. This actor is listed fifth in credit order in IMDb for the Oscar film and fourth in the Emmy TV show. But even if this was not the case, the notability precedent and guidelines should still apply.184.68.23.102 (talk) 14:53, 31 August 2019 (UTC)This is this editor's only contribution to WP. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:58, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. I also must add that in the 1980 film, Quest for Fire, he played Rouka in his first film, and was fifth-billed. FWIW, this was the film that also launched Ron Perlman. Bearian (talk) 16:01, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete This is a borderline case. The article needs some love, but I don't think the current sources establish that he is either generally notable or that he was a significant role in multiple productions or that he has a cult following. The Zoobilee Zoo and Quest for Fire roles weren't discussed in the previous AFD, so I'm not sure if they were missed, or if someone has made a frankenstein out of several actors of the same name. If this is kept, someone should go get the three sources from the previous AFD and incorporate them into the article. Rockphed (talk) 13:28, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The book did seem to get a little bit of attention. [1] [2] It's true that you can pay Kirkus to review self-published books but I imagine you can't pay them to put it on a best-of list. Haukur (talk) 17:26, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Would help to have more feedback about the significance of his roles, or better still if there are other sources to indicate notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 18:50, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is a numerical tilt towards keeping this, but the arguments to do so are based on assertions, rather than evidence, of notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 18:59, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems to have done things to rise above the absent pack. Hyperbolick (talk) 18:06, 20 September 2019 (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.