Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Rhodes


 * 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. Rlendog (talk) 19:11, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Alexander Rhodes

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unremarkable aspiring actor, notability asserted on the basis of successful management of social media. No substantial notability based on professional accomplishment.  Acroterion   (talk)   03:46, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - Nonnotable actor who does not seem to pass WP:ENT.  Zappa  O  Mati   03:50, 3 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - Non-notable actor lacking ghits and gnews of substance. red dog six  (talk) 03:51, 3 October 2012 (UTC)


 * LOL - "production assistant and aspiring actor who began his professional career in 2012". Enough said. Seriously, though - WP:USERG, WP:BLP1E and WP:IMDB pretty much cover it. Stalwart 111  (talk) 04:49, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable to the point of absurdity.  Qworty (talk) 22:26, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Before we dismiss social media too quickly we ought to remember the website you're looking at right now is a social media website with a MMORPG bolted on.  Alexander has proven that if you use a large enough social media lever you can shift the rotation of the earth.  The people who patrol these pages looking for things to delete hate Mr. Rhodes precisely because he has done what they can not.  He used social media to become notable.  And when someone slightly more successful in the wikipedia MMORPG comes along and closes this he will also be motivated by jealousy.  Lots of rules can, and will, be quoted but the heart of the matter is not missed by any keen observer.  So just have your delete and be done with it.  Alexander already won.  74.64.4.218 (talk) 06:43, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - As above; LOL. Stalwart 111  (talk) 10:18, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - Ditto, I guess 74.64.4.218 is s mind reader. Amazing!!! roflol!!!   red dog six  (talk) 06:32, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:32, 4 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - Shouldn't the similar article at Alexandre Rhodes be a part of this as well? -Niceguyedc Go Huskies! 06:41, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No, restored original redirect to Alexandre de Rhodes. red dog six  (talk) 07:12, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak keep, I'd say. I don't think anyone is suggesting that his acting career confers notability;  his status as an "Internet Phenomenon" probably does though.  Not quite a Star Wars Kid, but probably at least a Figwit.  His mother should be proud.  - TB (talk) 13:15, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. - NyanCat is notable due to the fact that it is the fifth most seen video on youtube and people generate derived content (remixes). Alexander Rhodes is notable because his profile is in second place (and rising) on IMDB and people generate derived content (memes, fake movie posters, etc). Tom Cruise considered him notable enough to tweet him congratulations. But you will ignore this post anyways because I'm not a registered user. 87.184.171.140 (talk) 13:49, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No, you are welcome to contribute. But your argument would carry more weight if it were something other than WP:BIGNUMBER. Please have a read of WP:GNG and then come back and provide some verifiable proof that the subject meets those criteria. Having memes created about you or getting tweets from Tom Cruise does not make you notable by Wikipedia standards. Not even close. Stalwart 111  (talk) 14:36, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Not notable at all. — ΛΧΣ  21™  01:02, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - As an actor, he has no notability at all. The recent spike in popularity due to being, essentially, an internet meme does nothing to show any sort of lasting notability beyond this single event.  The majority of the sources being used are not reliable, being either social networking sites or are about subjects that do not even mention this individual.  The few that are actual articles on the individual are nothing but brief fluff pieces that, again, show no lasting notability outside of being an "odd news story of the week" type incident.  Rorshacma (talk) 16:48, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


 * 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.