Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chad W. Smathers


 * 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, maybe it can be recreated if the claim to notability comes true. ~ trialsanderrors 02:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Chad W. Smathers

 * - (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable actor who clearly fails WP:BIO. An earlier Prod tag was removed. Original author was a sockpuppet account which has been indef blocked Gwernol 17:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Clearly on the bleeding edge of notability but he's got legitimate credits so I say leave him in. --Lee Vonce 17:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete a couple of TV appearances and some indie movies without articles do not add up to notability. --Daniel J. Leivick 18:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * comment: If he's got legitimate credits, he is inherently notable.  --Lee Vonce 21:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The relevant standard for notability on Wikipedia is WP:BIO. I still haven't seen any evidence that Chad Smathers meets the criteria laid out there. If you disagree that this standard is appropriate, you are welcome to change it if a consensus of editors agree on the standard's talk page. Otherwise, that's the guideline we use and you'll need to present evidence here that the Smathers meets the existing standard. Gwernol 22:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see any "standards" there. I see guidelines and suggestions.  However, the fact that he's listed in IMDB is good enough.  IMDB is a credible source and his presence there is verifiable.  Also, I don't see how wikipedia is better for removing entries on people of questionable notability.  Why not err on the side of caution and include him? --Lee Vonce 16:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Guidelines are standards in Wikipedia. IMDB is not a reliable source since anyone can edit it. Gwernol 20:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how you figure that "guidelines are standards" but you're incorrect about IMDB being an "anyone can edit it" source. Information has to be submitted for inclusion and verified by IMDB admins before it will be accepted.  That makes it a more reliable source than wikipedia.  I'd also point out that many other wikpedia articles cite IMDB as a source.  So why can't this article do it?  --Lee Vonce 14:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails notability test, article also lacks pertinent information that would make it encyclopedic (such as age, where he was born, etc). Even if he was notable the article needs a re-write.  Tomstdenis 14:18, 25 January 2007 (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.