Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patterson Lundquist


 * 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   no consensus.  MBisanz  talk 00:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Patterson Lundquist

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

non notable unreferenced RS free promotional article for bit actor Troyster87 (talk) 02:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: non-notable bit actor fails WP:ENTERTAINER. Not finding any reliable source coverage to justify an article.  Note that the page creator appears to have a conflict of interest.  Baileypalblue (talk) 03:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

TangibleDreams (talk) 12:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)*All details listed are verified through the Internet Movie Database. Also entertainer is included/referenced in another wiki-article/page for "The Search for the Next Elvira" as a key player/role. Would the page for Elvira/Cassandra Peterson, altered by her management and updated by her agent be considered 'conflict of interest' as well? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TangibleDreams (talk • contribs) 17:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

TangibleDreams (talk) 12:15, 4 March 2009 (UTC) *Entertainer is also listed on wikiarticle for Elvira/Cassandra Peterson which makes two separate article refrences.

TangibleDreams (talk) 14:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)Source coverage available at: Cassandra Peterson see 'impersonators' The Search for the Next Elvira appeared in every episode and served as make-up artist for the finalists. Far more than a bit part.


 * There are thousands of people listed on the internet movie database, that does not mean they are notable for wikipedia entries. The IMDb is just a good source for verifying filmographies. Furthermore being listed on a wikipedia article does not show any notability nor is it a reference, sure by the dictionary definition he is "referenced" however when editing wikipedia you must have a reference is a realible source, such as newspaper, book, encyclopedia, or magazine, or reputable website such as Weather.com or the CIA world factbook or CBS.com. He must not just be mentioned such as in credits but be the main subject of multiple non-trivial coverage. Also I could add him to a thousand wikipedia articles as can anyone that still makes for 1000 unusable "references"Troyster87 (talk) 00:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 00:03, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - Exceptionally non-notable actor, article author is subject (Google +TangibleDreams +"Patterson Lundquist"). Proxy User (talk) 18:04, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - self-promotion. Robsavoie (talk) 20:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep- valid entry with relevance to Cassandra Peterson.TangibleDreams (TangibleDreams) 20:50, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep- while bordering on self-promotion, relevance is found in relation to a well received reality show. If article were to list references for a few points I see no reason to delete. ModestMouse69 (ModestMouse69) 12:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep- As long as wikipedia has needless articles for adult film/pornography stars with pointless, unreferenced, self-promoting material geared towards an adult audience on an all ages site like Wikipedia, there's absolutely no reason this article should be removed. There is a nice amount of verified references and the subject matter (while off-beat) is interesting. While self-promotion is arguable, too many other articles here could be regarded as self promotion as well. COI doesn't completely apply in this case as all information in this article directly reflects subjects actual accomplishments. COI would only come into play if article was written in a competitive style to make article subject appear 'better' than another individual of similar standing. NPOV is a bit blurry in some areas, however the majority of the article presents it's self neutrally in regards to article timeline and accomplishments. NPOV becomes blurry in areas where research falls short. Personal data like birth date and childhood information. Author of article should identify themselves and attempt to clarify the origin of information for various article subjects. Even with these points in mind I still see reason to retain the article. NickVincent75 (NickVincent75) 13:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems to me to be presented fairly and to establish a certain notability. I had no idea who Elvira was before I found this (I'm not in the USA and don't watch television anyway), but there seems to be a notability factor present. Another valid claim is the Jeannie website (I had heard of Jeannie). As to the above comment about porn 'stars', Wikipedia is not censored. I do agree that the notability of some of them seems dubious, but 'this can because that does' is not a Wikipedia policy. I feel this article fulfils the relevant requirements anyway. Peridon (talk) 20:40, 9 March 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.