The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 18:59, 25 August 2009 (UTC) reply
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
Preliminary Google searches for both the nickname and full name reveal nothing from any possibly reliable sources about this actor, and Google news, books, and scholar searches come up equally empty. lifebaka ++ 21:53, 18 August 2009 (UTC) reply
I'm really sorry you feel you need to follow every rule in the book. So well done you win, congratulations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tajindersaund ( talk • contribs) 20:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC) reply
PLEASE KEEP IT PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tajindersaund ( talk • contribs) 09:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC) reply
I suspect now that wikipedia consists of a very small, close-nit, contributory group of people that gang-up on perfectly valid articles and perfectly valid contributions. This word DELETE or KEEP or SUPERKEEP, I mean come on????? who thought of that lame idea??? Does it really matter that every point within the "notability" bracket isn't quite justified. He is of interest to us and shouldn't be picked on because his fame isn't overly extensive or he hasn't reached every social website. I could pick, let me see..... "millions and millions" of articles that mean absolutely nothing to me and will be of no interest to myself, my friends or my family. This article is a simple point of reference, and should be seen as that. A single solitary page in a vast array of information. As he produces more work his article will obviously grow as the contributor pointed out earlier. But as of now I feel Tich has worked hard enough in his career so far to be worthy of his own first seed page. That's my opinion and I'm sure you'll figure out some ridiculous reason not to have it amongst your little old school gang, you contributors that probably got picked on at school and feel it's their right to now punish the world of internet researchers by acting on old age censorship. And God help me if any of your returns imply that I'm being sarcastic or picking on the professional process wikipedia follows. Let it be known I value this website but it's so obvious we should be more flexible and compromising in our approach to reunite humanity and it's scholars. LET IT STAY!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hotelhappy ( talk • contribs) 09:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC) — Hotelhappy ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply