- 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. TonyBallioni ( talk) 02:40, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Charley Koontz
- Charley Koontz ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Notability not proven. Makro ( talk) 16:45, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
- Keep - There are a number of articles about the subject, [1], [2], [3]. Note to the nominator, please review the article using WP:BEFORE prior to going to AfD. reddogsix ( talk) 17:13, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
- I went by sources used in article. If the writer couldn't be bothered to used references to prove notability then I had to nominate.
Makro (
talk) 23:19, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
- As evidenced by WP:BEFORE, that attitude is contrary to Wikipedia community standards. The reason to nominate an article for deletion is to remove articles that do not meet Wikipedia criteria, not remove valid incomplete articles or to punish editors for their brevity. I suggest you reevaluate your reasoning for nominating articles for AfD before your next nomination. reddogsix ( talk) 23:57, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
- I went by sources used in article. If the writer couldn't be bothered to used references to prove notability then I had to nominate.
Makro (
talk) 23:19, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
- Keep passes GNG, multitude of sources over many years. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:30, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
-
L3X1 If you have more than the three included sources please add them to improve the article. Just the three on the page are not enough to prove notability.
- A I didn't get your ping because you forgot to sign, B, the essay
WP:ATD says under
WP:ASSERTN
what matters is the existence of reliable, secondary sources that are entirely independent of the topic that have published detailed content about it, regardless of the present state of the article.
. The sources don't have to be on the article, the whole sources for notability vs sources for info thing. I will try and add them in when I get the chance. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:03, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
- A I didn't get your ping because you forgot to sign, B, the essay
WP:ATD says under
WP:ASSERTN
-
L3X1 If you have more than the three included sources please add them to improve the article. Just the three on the page are not enough to prove notability.
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:30, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:30, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
- Delete I am tired of this hand waving for more sources. People need to put sources in. While deletion should be based on what exists, people can't just claim sources exist and leave it at that, they need to prove it, which means inserting them.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 02:05, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
- Note to closer: this argument should be discounted as a clear violation of arguments to avoid; notability applies to a topic and not an article as it currently stands. Sources have been given explicitly by reddogsix and whether they are listed here or in the article is irrelevant to AfD. — Bilorv (c) (talk) 14:41, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
- Delete. If his most notable rôle is not even mentioned in our article on Community then it is minor indeed, and surely not a "significant role" as required for WP:NACTOR; his other parts appear to be even more trivial. If someone adds a good number solid reliable sources with in-depth coverage of numerous significant parts as required by our notability guideline, then please ping me. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 21:21, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 13:37, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 13:37, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 12:07, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 12:07, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
- Weak keep per the sources Makro gives. For what it's worth, Fat Neil is a recurring but not major character on Community (regardless of what our article does/doesn't say). The CSI: Cyber role could push Koontz over the edge of the notability threshold, but I am not familiar with that show. — Bilorv (c) (talk) 14:41, 14 April 2018 (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.