Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windell D. Middlebrooks

:{{la|Windell D. Middlebrooks}} – (View AfDView log{{•}} {{plainlink|1=http://toolserver.org/~betacommand/cgi-bin/afdparser?afd={{urlencode:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windell D. Middlebrooks}}|2=AfD statistics}})

:({{findsources|Windell D. Middlebrooks}})

non-notable actor, article unsourced - wikipedia is not IMDB... the possibility of being a co-star in *future* sitcom (hence not notable) with a notable actor is not notability... Cerejota (talk) 05:52, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Cerejota (talk) 05:53, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Cerejota (talk) 05:54, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

:({{findsources|Windell Middlebrooks}})

• Keep and improve through the course of regular editing. While the actor's career began as a standup comedian, he made the cross over to television and film... though, like many actors, he has many single appearances in multiple shows. However, his 2 episodes in 2005 as a named character on Weekends at the DL and 2 episodes in 2008 as a named chaaracter on Chocolate News have blossomed more recently into (so far) 7 episodes as a named character on The Suite Life on Deck (2008-2010) and "guest-starring" as a named character in 6 episodes of Scrubs (2009-2010), as well as his being interviewed as himself in 2009 on both The Ellen DeGeneres Show and The Tonight Show with Jay Leno. Yes, it needs sourcing, but I believe he meets WP:ENT and that the article will benefit the project through its improvement. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:39, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

:*This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:49, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

::SOrry the autotagger borked.--Cerejota (talk) 13:03, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

OK lets see WP:ENT:

:Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.

I don't think they can be described as significant. If the new project becomes notable, that would be his first significant role, hardly "multiple".

:Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.

Cannot find it. And the intertubes make this easy.

:Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.

Definitely not.

Wikipedia is not IMDB. Just because your publicist got you on Ellen and Jay Leno (along with dozens of other non-notables) and you gig on TV it doesn't mean you are notable.--Cerejota (talk) 13:09, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

To Cerejota: While it is understandable that you wish to spread and space your comments, it is bit confusing in reading a discussion though. But interesting. Breaks up the monotony.

:No one in this discussion says Wikipedia is IMDB. Repeating it in refutation of something that no one asserted only gives an impression of IDONTLIKEIT, even if you personally do not have any such feelings toward this specific actor.

::What IS important in consideration of this individual, is his recurring roles in multiple notable series and in notable mainstream media, which do indeed speak toward his notabilitry.

:::And noted below by User:Eudemis, are samples of continuing coverage that show meeting of GNG. In reaching a concensus through polite discussion, other editor's understanding of WP:GNG and WP:ENT and WP:BIO might not be the same as yours, as guidelines are not written to exclusionary, but as guides in determining how and if someone may be worthy of note. It is appearances in mainstream media and recurring roles in notable television series that indeed DO create a guideline encouraged presumption of notability.

::::So no need to be dismissive of his appearances on Ellen or Jay because of an unfounded presumption that his appearances and interviews on those two notable shows were "only" because of a publicist getting him the gig. Unless you are already worthy of note, all the publicist's calls in the world will not get someone on Leno. Trust that Ellen and Jay have production people who determine if someone is worthy enough of note to be scheduled. They have sponsers and ratings to consider. Both notables themselves have staff that proactively search for guests that are worthy of note. Scheduling a "Mister Nobody" does not improve ratings nor make sponsers happy.

:::::Thank you for re-stating your opening opinion Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:58, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

:({{findsources|Windell Middlebrooks}})

:({{findsources|Windell D. Middlebrooks}})

• Keep He might interest some readers as he does generate some media attention. [http://www.adweek.com/aw/content_display/news/e3ia67226593de9282c9358ba4603422386][http://www.wickedlocal.com/marshfield/news/lifestyle/columnists/x931221514/MARSHFIELD-FROM-THE-EDITORS-DESK-Fake-hero-real-problems][http://www.philly.com/inquirer/magazine/20091205_Dave_on_Demand__Hall_of_Fame_Concert__Graying_greatest_hits.html][http://www.syracuse.com/poliquin/index.ssf/2008/07/the_allstar_game_was_really_qu.html]and he is cited occasionally as a celebrity, "the face of Miller High Life Beer" [http://www.lvrj.com/news/-pawn-stars--brings-bookworm-fame-89253557.html]Eudemis (talk) 23:41, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
• :Agreed. That's what my own searches have shown... Pushing nicely at at ENT and making it through GNG. Article simply needs work. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:58, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
• Keep Two different superbowl halftime shows have had him doing beer ads, the second one showing more footage of him. [http://www.adweek.com/aw/content_display/news/e3ia67226593de9282c9358ba4603422386] His work in other roles appears after a quick click of the Google news search at the top of this AFD. Dream Focus 07:34, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
• Keep. Needs improvement, certainly, but deletion? I think not. Add those sources found by Eudemis and you've got an article which meets WP:GNG. Also note that it is no longer unsourced as one reference has already been added. Alzarian16 (talk) 14:57, 26 April 2010 (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.