Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William G. Schilling


 * 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   revdelete but keep. An unusual problem sometimes requires an unusual solution. It seems this was created at least partially as a hoax, but it has now been fixed up and disputed/improper material removed. So, I've used revision deletion to remove all edits before those improvements from view. This is essentially the same effect as deleting but allowing immediate recreation. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:02, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

William G. Schilling

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This is effectively an unreferenced BLP as the purported references (now removed but reviewable here:) are dead links seemingly designed to deceive. Googling on the alleged news article titles get you nothing but the article itself which indicates that they are bogus, not just mislinked. There is an IMDB entry but that is not RS. I have no idea whether this is a complete hoax or whether there is some truth here but it sure as hell fails verifiability. The author's only other action has been to hoax the death of another actor using similar deceptive reference links, which makes it very hard to assume any good faith. DanielRigal (talk) 20:41, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  —DanielRigal (talk) 20:49, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - how bizarre, good catch. He seems to have existed but I can't find much coverage in reliable secondary sources, so I think delete. I've removed the contentious material with false references from view for a start - it can be seen in the history if anyone needs to investigate further. --Physics is all gnomes (talk) 20:54, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thinking about it, given that the contributor seems to have deliberately falsified references, I don't see how we can trust any of the other information on the page - this is a rare case where assuming bad faith seems sensible. Some of the information is certainly true, but if Schilling were notable, someone would need to go through very carefully to check all the facts, and it might be better to start again from nothing at all than to start from this base of dubious truth. Anyway, at the moment he seems unnotable. --Physics is all gnomes (talk) 13:22, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep I was going to delete, then I found all this I think a Google Book search should be compulsory in AfDs. I don't approve of the editors other actions though. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 21:02, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I must admit the Google News search came up so empty that I neglected to do a Google Books search like I should have, and normally would have. These results do give us verifiability that the subject is real and of a lot of roles he played but I still worry that they are only list entries and do not give us the required material for a good biographical article. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:13, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - all those books seem to be just his name mentioned in long lists of actors in different programs. As far as I can see isn't any substantial depth of coverage there.--Physics is all gnomes (talk) 21:07, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Yeh, I'm not sure the article should exist, but I just wanted to prove he was real. For importance comparison though I went to Two and a Half Men and found just as poor depth of coverage and actors of questionable importance there. Are there too many of these pages? J. D. Walsh and Jennifer Bini Taylor etc. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 21:52, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep reliable sources found, I would like to see more in-depth coverage. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:41, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Could you be more specific - what reliable sources? If you mean the google book search discussed above, I looked through the results and found barely a sentence about him in any of them, mostly just his name in a list - hardly substantial coverage.
 * Given the extremely dodgy circumstances of this article's creation (some pretty unpleasant material was included with falsified references), at the least I'd like to rewrite it using only what I can find in reliable sources - which at the moment is almost nothing. Currently the article even contains a direct quote from the actor which isn't referenced. --Physics is all gnomes (talk) 10:16, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think there is a good case for deleting the whole article so that the fake content is removed from view in the history. This would be entirely without prejudice to the article being recreated later, even immediately, provided it is written from reliable sources. At the moment we don't have any references apart from IMDB which is not reliable. IMDB is user contributed content. Like Wikipedia, it can be hoaxed by malicious users or by users who relay false information in good faith. We can reliably reference the roles played using the Google Books links but not much else. Do we really know that the Personal Life section is anything more than made up? (I am going to go and delete that section and the unreferenced quote)
 * If we can get a reliably referenced stub out of this then I will be pleased but we do need a bit more than the sourced found so far. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:38, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm also happy for this to deleted without prejudice as Daniel suggests.--Physics is all gnomes (talk) 21:38, 10 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep I know that it could be better with more references, but for now, it's okay.  EBE123  talkContribs 21:51, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete (Strong?) - It does not satisfy WP:CREATIVE and/or WP:NACTOR. The keywords here are "SIGNIFICANT role" along with "in MULTIPLE NOTABLE films, tv shows..." a "one-hit wonder" with only 5 appearances in a single show and mutiple minor performances as well as mentions in "cast crew" credits do not seem encyclopedic enough. Although I believe that all actors that appeared on TV should deserve an article, wikipedia it not an indiscriminate collection of information, and it would also violate WP:BIO and the principles of what wikipedia is not.-- Loukinho (talk) 21:09, 15 April 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.