Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric Allan Kramer


 * 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 keep. — CharlotteWebb 01:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Eric Allan Kramer
Delete - does not appear to pass WP:BIO. Otto4711 22:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Per WP:BIO: "Notable actors and television personalities who have appeared in well-known films". That's a funny rule when the word "notable" is used in the definition of "notability."  So he is halfway there by being in several notable films.  Well how prominent does he have to be in the films?  I think that is less clear.  WP standards ask that a topic be noticed, not be important or famous.   I'm basing my vote on playing a memborable/noticed charachter, Little John" in Robin Hood MIT, with the rest of his resume fleshing out the notablility.  Now all we lack is verifiability. I'm sure that there si something in the over 13,000 g-hits. Good Luck! --Kevin Murray 23:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:BIO goes on to say that "Notability can be determined by: Multiple features in popular culture publications such as Vogue, GQ, Elle, FHM or national newspapers; A large fan base, fan listing or "cult" following; An independent biography; Name recognition; Commercial endorsements." He does not appear to meet any of these criteria. "I saw him in a movie" strikes me as a flavor of WP:ILIKEIT. Otto4711 23:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Those are examples of how to demonstrate not specific thresholds of proof. --Kevin Murray 01:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Re: ILIKEIT, I've never seen the movie nor heard of the man. But I've heard of the movie and I'm familiar with Little John as a central character in the Robin Hood legend. You seem pretty anxious to get rid of this.  What's the harm here? --Kevin Murray 01:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I could turn around and say you seem overly anxious to keep it. It's not a question of harm, and I don't get why people pose that question like it means something. Otto4711 03:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Many of us joined WP to write and share knowledge; shouldn't preserving that effort have some priority? --Kevin Murray 04:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * To me making the statement: "doesn't appear to pass..." is using a weasle term. It means you aren't sure so you'll throw it to AfD anyway.  Were you too much in hurry to make the nomination, to do you due dillignece?  I think that you owe the community the effort to look to see whether it does or doesn't pass BIO and have some certainty in your conviction before you spend our time.  This is a very borderline case which should have been left alone. --Kevin Murray 04:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh dear god, you're upset because I said "doesn't apeear to pass" instead of "doesn't pass"? I said "doesn't appear to" because I googled the man and checked several dozen of the results and none of them were beyond cast lists or his name in a review of a film. As sure as God made little green apples, if I'd said "does not pass" then someone would've been in here criticising me for that. I found the guy's article while cleaning out a category where he was listed but didn't belong. Looking at his unrefernced article I decided to see if there were any references that could be incorporated. Finding none, I put him up for AfD. Sorry if that offends you in some way, that I used AfD to try to remove an article that doesn't belong here. Otto4711 13:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Otto, I'm not offended, but I'm increasingly concerned about poorly thought out AfD nominations. However, I'm impressed with the amount of thought that you put in here.  Thanks.  I still don't agree with your conclusion, but we are all entitled to variance in opinion.  I know that it is extra work to explain the nomination, but it certainly helps those of us who are evaluating your choice when you tell us why. --Kevin Murray 17:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I would temper the use of throwing out "ILIKEIT" as a defence for an AfD, as I think that can be a bit condesending toward the reviewer's opinion, and far more applicable to a Brittany knock-off than a mature character actor with a diverse but not famous career.--Kevin Murray 17:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak keep, although as written the article multiply exaggerates "appearances" into "guest starring". Fie on that. But he was in quotable scenes in True Romance and American Wedding as well as RH:MIT, per IMDb, so that's probably enough. No features or interviews, but gNewsArchiveHits show his characters being singled out in movie reviews, so he isn't just playing background characters. --Dhartung | Talk 08:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I've done some cleanup, so it's a bit more obvious. My "exaggeration" comment seems unwarranted. --Dhartung | Talk 08:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep, there still is a problem with WP:V due to lack of quality sources Alf photoman 15:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll try to work on some sources later today -- the article looks much better thanks to Dhartung. --Kevin Murray 17:07, 7 February 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.