Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Kimmet


 * 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. v/r - TP 21:48, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Brian Kimmet

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Only source is IMDB, cannot find other sources. Notability in question. Karl 334  ☞ TALK to ME ☜  14:44, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I completely concur. It seems the creator of the page is a fan of The Morning After and has also created a stub for Ginger Gonzaga. As the editor of The Morning After page, I have found nothing to make either Brian or Ginger notable in an encyclopedic way. Composer Dude  (TALKIE) *contribs  16:48, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Wow, I am tired of the faceless bureacracy that is threatening to destroy everything that Wikipedia stands for. It used to be in this country that a man, a dream, and some hard work was enough. What would the proprieters of the American Dream think if they had to find "credible sources". So in conclusion, DO NOT DELETE THIS ARTICLE! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knowledge227 (talk • contribs) 00:50, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources which provide verifiable evidence of notability are "what Wikipedia stands for". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not some sort of "American Dream" manifesto. Bearcat (talk) 01:00, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You've obviously never heard Jimmy Wales expound on the topic, my friend! Carrite (talk) 16:28, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Delete unless WP:RS can be found. Bearcat (talk) 01:00, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Two words: First Amendment. And you know what, in the wild there is no such thing as a "Bearcat". I'm tired of having to deal with people who can post this stuff in a dark room. Oh, the times they are a changing — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knowledge227 (talk • contribs) 01:19, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you were under the impression that the American constitution held water at Wikipedia, because it doesn't. Karl 334   ☞ TALK to ME ☜  13:30, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd like you and the merry little band of shifty, faceless beureucrats to know that I won't go down without a fight. I stand for FREEDOM.Knowledge227 (talk) 14:34, 17 June 2011 (UTC)Ooh fancy signature SO STOP AUTOSIGNING ME
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  — -- Cirt (talk) 16:11, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - Unsourced fragment of a snippet of a short piece. No sources = crushing by the faceless machine... BTW, does anybody have the username ManBearPig? That would be a good one... Carrite (talk) 16:25, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

One, Carrite is a wierd username and ManBearPig would be even worse. Two, I would like an audience with Jimmy Wales on this topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.7.235 (talk) 18:34, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I feel bad for you jaded editors. Too obsessed with code and regulations you have lost sight about what Wikipedia is really about. So cut the trash and answer my questions. DO NOT DELETE THIS ARTICLE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.7.235 (talk) 18:37, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm looking for bureaucrat... can I get a bureaucrat in here? Preferably one missing a face. And with masterful powers of deletion. Knowledge227, encyclopedic content must be notable, which means a major impact on human events that people have taken note of. It must be reliably sourced, which is to say if a verifiable reference cannot be found to vet the subjects notability, it is still not notable. Brian Kimmet is very talented. So is my sister, who's a nurse. Neither of them are notable... yet. They're just talented. Composer Dude  (TALKIE) *contribs  19:56, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I am hoping for you guys. In your pursuit of ascent on this buereaucratic ladder you have lost your ways. Who is to determine what is notable or not notable? Is the simple action of taking a breath or blinking an eye notable? An hour of wolves and shattered shields when the Age of Men comes crashing down, but it is not this day! This day we fight! By all that you hold dear on this good earth, I bid you stand!---Yours Truly, Very Concerned
 * Are we plagiarizing Tolkien now Mr. Knowledge? Karl 334   ☞ TALK to ME ☜  20:50, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Do I have to even cite my comments now ((Mr.)) Karl? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knowledge227 (talk • contribs) 20:51, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Your move well-read buereucrats--Very Concerned — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knowledge227 (talk • contribs) 21:00, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * DeleteAs a faceless bureacrat who wants nothing more than to hold down a man's dream of course. Well that and no sources. Wildthing61476 (talk) 21:04, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:GNG. IMDB is not considered a reliable source. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 21:11, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Wow, you guys are simply hilarious. Except for Mr. Roving Ambassador. Taking the words of a impassioned man and turning them against him. How can you sleep at night? Hey I've got an idea you guys should write for SNL #PSYCH — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knowledge227 (talk • contribs) 21:13, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - Okay, Mr. Knowledge, here's the deal. Getting hauled to AfD is like getting a ticket when you drive your car. Some cops are jackasses, some are reasonable sorts, but the fact is, your article is in traffic court. At Wikipedia, articles aren't cautioned or fined, they're either given the death penalty or set free. It's a tough neighborhood. Singing Bob Dylan songs or railing against the demons or Mordor ain't gonna get the piece on the judge's good side. You've gotta scramble like fast to find two or three significant independent sources indicating this article topic is encyclopedia-worthy. So get your Google on, brother. Just to be a good sport, I'll help now. Carrite (talk) 23:28, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


 * There's a shitload of hits on this dude, he's probably notable in WP terms even though finding three things that pass muster is proving to be time consuming. Here's number one: A BIO OF KIMMET FROM NBC.COM. Carrite (talk) 23:37, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I convinced myself already. Delete vote stricken. Now working on the page... Carrite (talk) 00:14, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * His profile on the web page of a show he actually appeared in does not constitute coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. Bearcat (talk) 02:27, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia articles are not people. –MuZemike 21:48, 23 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - It's a little crystal-bally, but given his corpus and the forthcoming lead role in the film P.O.V. it seems this guy does indeed merit a Wikipedia bio. I'm having a hell of a time digging up another reliable source or two, but I've satisfied myself at least that there should be material out there. The bio is looking a little better... Carrite (talk) 00:47, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per lack of enough reliable sources except for Twitter and Facebook page, IMDb and official website. If this article wants to become epanded, it needs good sources. SwisterTwister   talk  07:26, 23 June 2011 (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.