Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gary Schwartz (actor)


 * 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. Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  12:49, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Gary Schwartz (actor)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Actor is not notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:47, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Archaios (talk) 11:25, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:07, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions . — Frankie (talk) 19:07, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:NACTOR, doesn't have non-inherited N from TF2 role. Page creator is making many pages like this—worth taking a look czar   &middot;   &middot;  19:12, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete as failing WP:NACTOR and lcaking indpeth coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:41, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - Per nom. Vacation9 (talk) 23:05, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. Let's do a source review:
 * Quite a long article in the Seattle Times that is assuredly about him, not his roles. This is one example of significant coverage in a reliable source independent of the subject. Let's see what else there is.
 * There's some discussion of Schwartz here, although it's in the context of a play and the source seems local in character.
 * Some more coverage in the Seattle Times, but this amounts to several paragraphs, not a whole article.
 * There are quite a few more articles, including reviews of performances in stage plays and so forth.
 * There is enough amount of coverage to concoct a short article with, but I'm not persuaded that we're quite at WP:GNG with this. There has been coverage in reliable secondary sources, but what I have found has tended to be either trivial in character or in the context of local events. He has not had major roles or made a significant impact on the industry; that much seems clear. In the sense that his contributions to larger productions have been trivial and the more extensive coverage comes in a local context, I don't think we're yet at coverage I'd call significant. This, I think, is the essence of the guidance provided by WP:NACTOR, a set of criteria he clearly falls short of. It's not a clear-cut case by any means, but I'm persuaded by the hyperlocal flavor of his most substantial coverage and the triviality of his other roles that delete is the correct course. --Batard0 (talk) 07:36, 5 November 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.