Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew Helms


 * 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. Stifle (talk) 19:31, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Matthew Helms

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

No notability. Appeared in some films, but uncredited. His own home page sings his praises but no notability established from this (unreliable) source. Oscarthecat (talk) 16:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Non notable actor. Paste (talk) 16:40, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Excuse me, he was credited in Cabin Fever and in Ding-a-ling-Less. 2 does not equal 0. 2≠0. Daniel Christensen (talk) 17:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, also, I did not count his homepage as a refernece, it's an external link genius. The IMDB entry is a reference. Daniel Christensen (talk) 17:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: Recommend reading WP:CIMDB about the usage of IMDB as a reference. Also, inclusion on IMDB does not establish notability.  Please be civil to other users.  The comment above, and the "What the Hell, Man" comment on my talk page, is inappropriate.  Alphageekpa (talk) 17:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Theortically, this discussion must be updated every time the article is modified, because these decisions reflect outdated opinions every time the article is modified. Daniel Christensen (talk) 18:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: Article does not "indicate the importance or significance of the subject," and the subject appears unnotable at best. Quoting WP:BIO, "The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"; that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded."" "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject."  Furthermore, for actors... "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, or other productions. Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.  Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment."  From my observations, this individual fails all criteria for notability. Alphageekpa (talk) 17:16, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak delete - i didn't want to speedy this, but the lead roles seems to be for local productions (remakes) and beyond the one credited role in an film that has an article here and the TV appearances there do not seem to be sufficient reliable sources. He seems to be quite accomplished as an martial artist, though. See e.g, but unless better sources come up, rather  later.--Tikiwont (talk) 19:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * CommentWhat makes these discussions pointless is that even if I add to the article it wont't matter because all too many people have already said delete. It's hard to explain what I mean. It's as frustratingt as the DMV.
 * Actually, the deletion discussion is about the potential and not just the current version of the article. Additional sources can be brought up here or added to the article itself in which case it is useful to drop a note here. Many editors will actively look for sources and others are willing to change their opinion if new information comes up. See eg. WP:HEY and WP:RESCUE. Of course it helps to post articles that are reasonably cited to begin with.--Tikiwont (talk) 20:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 25 November 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.