Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gideon Glick


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 02:01, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Gideon Glick

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Fails WP:Entertainer Drawn Some (talk) 19:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, or other productions.
 * 2) Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.
 * 3) Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.
 * Keep The referencing leaves something to be desired, but "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, or other productions." is clearly met with the Broadway play and the off-broadway one, or if you prefer the Disney role. - Mgm|(talk) 13:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. I concur with Mgm. A broadway performance and a Disney role is enough for me. HJMitchell    You rang?  21:00, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note it is worth taking into account Articles for deletion/Remy Zaken in coming to a conclusion here. HJMitchell    You rang?
 * This taken from your user page is worth taking into account, too:


 * ".....my philosophy collides with WP:NOTABILITY. I believe that if you can write a decent article on it that forms part of the web and is well referenced and well written, the article should stay- no matter what wiki- policy says on it."


 * I'm not trying to get in a tangle with you but I was wondering why you were saying to keep articles whose subjects clearly are non-notable, I think I have the answer! Improving articles is admirable but claiming that an unreferenced probable high school role in a Disney play meets notability requirements is another altogether. If you disagree with a guideline or policy you should work to change it. Drawn Some (talk) 01:51, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep WP:GNG is the parent of the the lessor criteria WP:ENTERTAINER. If WP:N is met, one need look no further only in order to find ways to exclude.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 00:01, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I request that this be relisted for consensus. The "Disney" role isn't referenced and I can't find it anywhere.  I still maintain that the basic requirements for notability are not met and neither are the requirements for entertainer. The references added are insufficient. Drawn Some (talk) 00:55, 11 May 2009 (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.