Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ted Schmidt


 * 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. The real Mr. Schmidt has had no illustrated evidence of passing our notability criteria, and has since been closed as delete. Google already gives mixed results and the idea that real people should outrank fictional characters is not enough to get the article kept. (Imagine James Bond replacing James Bond) My advice to Mr Schmidt would be to speak to Showtime, or hope that people don't confuse you for a fictional gay accountant from Pennsylvania. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 21:59, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Ted Schmidt

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Fails WP:BIO. The only reference provided besides his own website is an article where his name is mentioned once as a little side detail. Web search returns just various lists of businesses… Skarebo (talk) 12:50, 10 October 2009 (UTC) P.S. one possible solution: ∆

"This article is about a living person, and must adhere to the policy on biogrpahies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should not be added and if present, must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous." - Wiki policy

The article is about a living person: Ted Schmidt (Talent Agent) It has been repeatedly edited, and redirected to a fictitious person, Ted Schmidt (Character in "Queer as Folk). This character has personal problems including drug and pornography addictions which make this listing libelous to the living person Ted Schmidt (Talent Agent).

As Wiki articles typically appear in the top search engines, I am respectfully requesting that the living person be granted precedence over the fictitious person. Failure to do so is libelous, negligent, and reckless; resulting in an undetermined amount of financial damage to the living person.

Perhaps the best solution to this problem is a disambiguation. A living person should take precedence over a fictitious one. 72.144.89.190 (talk) 13:01, 10 October 2009 (UTC)Ted Schmidt


 * Without access to the sources it is unclear how much coverage there is so I don't know whether the article should be deleted or not. There is an article in the Miami Herald that is probably about the talent agent but I don't have access to it. Whether the article is kept or not, there should be at least a link to the fictional character; there is nothing libellous there as it's clearly not the same person, and it isn't biographical material about a living person so the BLP policy isn't a valid reason to remove it.  The history of the original article (about the fictional character) is still needed as the list of characters was created by merging the separate articles. snigbrook (talk) 13:50, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP is irrelevant here. Information about a fictional character that coincidentally has the same name as a real one is not "material about living persons," and the fact that there is a character named "Ted Schmidt" on the show Queer as Folk is not "unsourced or poorly sourced."  The legal claims above are pure nonsense as well, unless we're genuinely concerned that the general public will think that content about a fictional character in a major television series, which is expressly identified as such, is really factual statements about a real life talent agent, who may or may not merit his own article.  Perhaps he should send a cease and desist letter to the producers of Queer as Folk to stop using "his" name.  If this talent agent does merit an article, there is no valid reason not to provide links at the top to other unrelated topics with the same name, and if he does not merit an article, there is no valid reason not to redirect this name to the list of characters.
 * See also No legal threats. If Mr. Schmidt wants to discuss whether he merits an article, fine, but the "libel" threats need to stop right now.  Postdlf (talk) 14:22, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * As I understand it that policy, like all WP policies, applies to editors only. Subjects of articles are free to make legal threats if they want to. (Although in this case I don't think one would have much merit.) Northwestgnome (talk) 15:20, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding outside references, there are only two other references on the fictional character, this hardly makes for a notable person, fictional or not. There is also a more famous Ted Schmidt who was the editor of the Catholic Times. Again, I do not have a problem with a disambiguation. 72.144.89.190 (talk) 17:01, 10 October 2009 (UTC)Ted Schmidt
 * Revert to TV Character No need for a disambig to accommodate a non-notable talent agent. And considering 72.144.89.190 appears to be the talent agent in question, I'd say NPOV is out the window. -- Ja Ga  talk 19:36, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete the article about the real person and restore redirect to the TV character. The living Ted Schmidt shows no particular evidence of notability, such as third-party press discussing him specifically and nontrivially rather than merely mentioning him in the context of an article about something else. And sharing a name with a fictional character is neither a good reason to create an article about a non-notable person, nor a good reason to create a separate disambiguation page in violation of our guidelines that a dab page have entries for three or more notable topics, nor a good reason to get rid of the redirect. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:41, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, move to Ted Schmidt (agent) and create disambiguation page. About 20 incoming links for the TV character, none for the (real) talent agent.  Not sure non-notable: letter from Jimmy Carter suggests notability within own field.  Just need quotes from the print sources. --Cedderstk 21:26, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, and lets block some people while we're at it! Seriously folks? Threats? Someone needs to be blocked for a while, or forever, what ever suits the admins' fancy. What I see when I read this article is an un-notable person with marginally noticable family members. I also see a WP:SPAM violation. As for the issue of the Miami Herald, trust me on this one, it's reliability as a legitimate source is questionable at best. Read it. Really, don't, it's not worth it. In conclusion, grow up please, making threats over the internet because of this seems remarkably childish. User:Nezzadar (speak) 22:57, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: Fails WP:BIO. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 03:04, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, let me see if I have this correct. This article is being edited by a group of volunteer (Unpaid, therefore amateur) editors, who are nameless, unidentifiable, and who's credentials are totally unknown72.144.89.190 (talk) 14:12, 11 October 2009 (UTC)Ted Schmidt
 * Which begs the question of why you'd want to be the subject of an article here, doesn't it? Welcome to Wikipedia.  Postdlf (talk) 14:41, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Why? “As Wiki articles typically appear in the top search engines…” Skarebo (talk) 14:53, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. It's not up to wikipedia to fix Google searches that people don't happen to like. Go whine to Google and see how far you get. Hairhorn (talk) 14:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - obvious vanity article; restore the character people have actually heard of. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  02:24, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete character is notable, real person is not - only one way to go here. Think the IP could be breaking WP:NLT Bacchus87 (talk) 14:19, 15 October 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.