Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kyle Schickner


 * 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.

Kyle Schickner
The result was Bad faith nomination by sockpuppet of indefinitely blocked user.
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

thr article has no merit. The person in question is nobody famous, seems like a vanity article. So many other articles that do belong here, and this one surely doesn't. Waste of time and space. LonChaney (talk) 08:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.   —triwbe (talk) 09:16, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep- A well written and thoroughly sourced article, and in my opinion the subject passes WP:BIO quite comfortably. Reyk  YO!  09:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep - as per Reyk . Can not be a vanity article, there is no evidence of COI. Plus nominator is a "new" editor who's first edits were to vandalise this article and vandalise an old AfD here.  --triwbe (talk) 09:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Bad faith nomination. For interest, compare and contrast the activities of the "new" editor who nominated and User_talk:Schatzberg. Ros0709 (talk) 10:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep the article is well sourced and shows notability. Jons63 (talk) 10:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep. Satisfies WP:BIO, cited frequently. Bad faith nomination from user abusing multiple accounts. WilliamH (talk) 11:43, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Can't see any reason to delete this article. @ LonChaney: See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. StaticGull Talk  13:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep Passes WP:BIO. tj9991 (talk | contribs) 12:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * delete Those are all overly biased opinions, and for all the wrong reasons. I've seen articles about people that "matter" get deleted on here. Yet an article about a two-bit director that no-one knows nor cares about stays? I don't think so. Plus, I already noticed there was a page removed from another one of Kyle's films that doesn't exist, so there must be some (if not plenty) of merit as to why it should be deleted. We'll let Admin figure it out, it certainly doesn't belong on this website, no-one knows about his work, no-one cares, and I don't have multiple accounts, so keep your snide comments about me to yourself. This is about why "Kyle Schickner" page should be deleted, nothing else. Oh, and P.S. ---I wasn't trying to vandalize the article, I just didn't nominate it for deletion properly, until someone else explained it to me. Thanks. LonChaney (talk) 17:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Not knowing or caring about something is not a valid deletion rationale. On that basis, whole chunks of the encyclopedia could be deleted (which defeats the point of the project somewhat). Some people clearly care about Kyle Schickner, namely, those who covered and cited him, establishing notability in the process and accordingly, the basis for an article on him here. WilliamH (talk) 17:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Truly, that isn't a good enough reason for the article to stand. Anybody who lists an article about anything, cares about it, so your rational makes no sense. LonChaney (talk) 17:47, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand: I refer not to the people who wrote his entry on Wikipedia but the sources that wrote about him on which this article is based on in the first place. Their coverage of him establishes notability, as obviously an encyclopedia, a tertiary source, is not the place to establish it. WilliamH (talk) 18:02, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - Caring about an article is not the question. The only reason for deleting here is notability and attribution, both of which the person/article has. If he was a "nobody", then I am sure the article would be deleted and maybe even salted to prevent recreation. The decision is not made by one admin, it is made by consensus and I do not see bias as every entry is an argument, not a vote. --triwbe (talk) 18:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep as the article clearly passes WP:BIO and ban the shit out of the Single Purpose Sockpuppet. SashaNein (talk) 18:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It was especially disgusting to justify removal of content by claiming to be Schickner's PR agent. I don't even know anything about the subject, yet your editing has shown this to be the ultimate bad faith nomination. SashaNein (talk) 18:04, 26 July 2008 (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.