Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gary Spatz

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. MBisanz talk 02:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Spatz[edit]

Gary Spatz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Does not appear to meet WP:N Livna-Maor (talk) 22:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep He is primarily a drama coach, and the claimed notability is that he was the coach for a large number of famous actors, 56 of whom have Wikipedia articles. (I assume there is 3rd party documentation for all of them, tho it needs to be added to the article) Considering the very high notability of some of them & the consequent extensive documentation of their careers, probably the sources on at least some of them would contain a discussion of the significance of his work with them. If it is possible for a sports coach to be notable as a coach, then it is possible for an acting coach to be notable as a coach. DGG (talk) 23:25, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As much as I respect DGG, I have to disagree here. Notability is not inherited from clients, it comes from independent, reliable sources. The 11 gnews hits turned up several press releases, a couple of passing mentions, and several wrong Gary Spatz's. The first 6 pages of non-wiki ghits didn't turn up a whiff of notability. Lots of press releases, lots of directory listings, a few complaints, but no notability. If someone can find independent, reliable sources that show notability and add them to the article, I'll gladly take another look, but as of now, I don't think it exists.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:50, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fabrictramp pretty much hits the nail on the head. Nothing can be found for this guy to meet WP:N. Wikipedia isn't a directory of living people, but notable people. That's what prevents it from being manipulated for personal gain, such as in the case of this possible autobiography. Themfromspace (talk) 22:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment a misunderstanding of not inherited. for a drama coach, the notability depends specifically on the clients, and one attains notability in this field by doing noatble work for notable clients. That;'s what the profession is about. DGG (talk) 05:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • reply But until we have a guideline on Wikipedia that says doing notable work for notable clients is good enough, we need to have reliable, independent sources showing notability. I still haven't found those sources -- have you?--Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Notable in the field != WP:N. I'm notable among pets living in my house because I feed them. LOLthulu 06:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep While videos usually aren't world-stopping references, this seems to prove that he truly does have notability in the field. That's the only thing I could find for now, but it seems to be promising. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :D 21:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Fabrictramp. This is a really close one, but the lack of independent coverage says WP:BIO fail to me. --JaGatalk 00:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not meet WP:BIO standards. Pastor Theo (talk) 03:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Interesting, because I took a class from Gary about 20 years ago. I believe he is an acting coach, but there is no mention in reliable, third-party publications regarding his legitimacy. He has no IMDb profile. No mention of his classes or coaching in third-party publications. In fact, the there are more than a few reviews criticizing the school he's run for possible improper business practices [1][2][3]. His clients may be notable, but his links to them are dubious (unless third-party evidence is provided), and he seems to fail WP:BIO.ColorOfSuffering (talk) 22:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In the interest of full disclosure, I should mention that I'm not personally impartial about the deletion of this page. I did want to ask, though, why the four or five video results from a single google video search on this guy fail to add reliablity. Granted, many of the videos I found seem to have been posted by this guy's company, but the videos themselves seem to be legitimate citations. In addition, I stumbled into this discussion while at the library. And while we couldn't find the articles online, the librarian found the Rocky Mountain News Oct 28, '94, which has an article entitled "So your child wants to be a star?". It discusses Spatz's work on Roseanne and The Mickey Mouse club. She also found Grand Magazine Nov/Dec '07. Its article "Calling all kids: lights, camera, action!" discusses Spatz's biography, talks about his school, as well as listing an extensive resumé. Now, you can argue that Grand Magazine isn't the New York Times, but it also seems pompous to discount it. Perhaps, rather than deletion, this article needs have unverifiable information removed, leaving only the information from those videos, Rocky Mountain News, Grand Magazine, and whatever anyone else can rustle up. User:poetnabotl 11:33, 1 February 2009
  • Delete I've found a maze of YouTube, MySpace and other stuff, plus very similarly worded references to him being 'respected'. I've found quite a few people warning of scams and business practices. It seems hard to get to the Gary Spatz revealed in this article. I'd be much happier with some solid outside references rather than four to Gary Spatz sites, and without someone with 'marketing' in his/her name doing a large revision. Call me cynical, just don't call me early... Peridon (talk) 20:06, 1 February 2009 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gary_Spatz&oldid=1142199163"