Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeremy Gelbwaks


 * 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. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 15:40, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Jeremy Gelbwaks

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Proposing page be deleted (or at the very least the redirect be restored) as the subject fails WP:ENTERTAINER. Subject hasn't acted since 1971, and his only credit to date is that of Chris #1 on The Partridge Family.  Pinkadelica ♣  21:07, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 21:11, 13 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:NTEMP and WP:ANYBIO. Very smart parents to take their child out of acting before he went the way of some others with whom he worked (not mentioning names, but two were his co-stars). Interesting too, that decades after his last appearance in front of a camera, he received TWO TV Land Awards nominations... one in 2003 and the other in 2006, and is STILL being written of in multiple reliable sources long after his series ended (though still seen in syndication).  My thought here is that WP:ANYBIO is the consideration over WP:ENT, and we do have considerations of his exceeding the needs of WP:GNG as well ... even if he is never heard from again. People  CNN  and some 119 others, as well as numerous books. We don't toss the notable simply because their time of peak notability has passed.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 03:38, 14 August 2011 UTC)


 * Keep He had a starring role (although briefly), in a TV show that was as popular then as it still is today (maybe even more so). The episodes continue to run in syndication and his name appears prominently in the opening titles each episode.-- JOJ Hutton  13:55, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Yes, he may have had a starring role, but he has had not much else besides that.  Also, there are no 3rd party references.Curb Chain (talk) 11:08, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete IF the article was properly sourced, I would go with extremely weak keep. However, the only source given, IMDB, is not reliable. Unless it can be reliably sourced, this ess*entially unsourced biography of a living person should be deleted. Safiel (talk) 23:18, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * No longer an unsourced BLP. Sorry, and do not mean to be WP:TLDR, but it seems I am seeing reasons for deletion being based upon
 * A) someone else having not fixed it,
 * B)  a requiring in contravention to WP:NTEMP that he must continue to have coverage,
 * (he does, so that invalid argument is moot)
 * C) that the easily found sources have not been added.
 * D) the subject had only a short acting career
 * "A", "B", and "C", are not reasons to delete, and not how we determine notability and, with the greatest of respects, notability is not dependent upon sources being IN an article. Per the applicable guideline: "Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate citation", which means that third party references do not HAVE to be in an article, just so long as they DO exist and can be found by anyone searching for them and can be added through regular editing.
 * When an article does not meet one of deletion policy's "Reasons for deletion", as this one does not, we are encouraged to look to deleion policy's suggested "Alternatives to deletion" and note its very first line that states "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion". And while point "D" has merit, WP:ENT does not overrule the enduring coverage of this individual that meets WP:GNG and thus WP:BIO. For actors that do a couple things, never get coverage, and then disappear into the void, ENT would best apply; but not for those who recieved coverage at the time and had coverage continue for that and subsequent events for almost 40 years.
 * However, and even though it is encouraged that surmountable problems are not adequate reasons to call for deletion, I wish to appease and have just added of few of the easily found sources spoken of above, showing that this person is still being written of long after the time of his peak notability, as enduring coverage is one of the signs of enduring notability. Was not the least bit difficult. If an issue can be fixed, that lack is no reason to delete.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 01:27, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * This being an unsourced BLP was not one of the reasons why I listed it for deletion. If that were the sole problem, I would have sourced the article. The fact that sources can be found about him doesn't necessarily make him notable as the show he appeared on was popular and follow-ups or "where are they nows" are a given. As stated in my rationale, I feel that the subject does not meet notability requirements. He appeared in 25 episodes of one series forty years ago and left acting. Far as I can tell, he doesn't have a cult following and he hasn't made a signification contributions to the field of entertainment. Unless we have started completely disregarding policy for notability inclusions, I see no reason to retain this biography on a person who is likely a private citizen now.  Pinkadelica ♣  02:27, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No, not one of your reasons. I simply listed and refuted all the reasons being given for deletion. He did make other contributions to acting after he left that series (though for the most part series-related, as it is logical), and he has received award nominations specifically targeted to recognize the contributions of thos involved in those older productions. Also, that he may be a private citizen now is irrelevent as far as notability is concerned. And as far as I have been able to assess, no policy is being ignored, and a minor article on this fellow serves the project and those readers who wish to to learn about the topic. And though I would not go so far as to call thousands of baby boomers a cult, Partridge Family fans exist.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 03:07, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 03:04, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Article now has sources and subject starred in nationally broadcast and internationally known program; period since he resigned from acting and length of role do not matter here, and article is certainly much more detailed than most child actors who have retired (where usually they never had a word written about them again).  Nate  • ( chatter ) 03:52, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per MichaelQSchmidt's well-stated reasoning.--Arxiloxos (talk) 04:06, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep now sourced. Barely notable. Safiel (talk) 04:57, 21 August 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.