Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Curt Mega

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. Consensus is that the subject currently does not meet the notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 09:29, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Curt Mega

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable bit-part actor. Prod with second endorsement was removed by article creator. Main claim to fame is involvement with Glee, but not even mentioned in the Characters_of_Glee article. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:00, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable actor. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 18:33, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I realize as a new creator/editor I made mistakes in setting up and editting the page. I apologize. I am studying and picking up as fast as I can and will consult before making more edits. On Mega notability, he has had multiple articles published on his theatrical performances and several lead roles- 2 of which earned him Column Award nominations. He is not yet listed on the Wiki Characters_of_Glee article but that article is an ongoing work. Mega has pages devoted to him, his character and his part in the Dalton Warblers on http://glee.wikia.com/wiki/Glee_TV_Show_Wiki. He has been indepently interviewed about his role on the show by masslive. Mozartchic01 (talk) 19:56, 21 October 2011 (UTC)Mozartchic01[reply]

Comment Please read WP:BIO. Have tumblr accounts and Twitter followers are not among the criteria for notability. Also, please read WP:COI, as some of the comments you've made on the articles talk page suggest you have some sort of relationship with the subject (publicist? relative?) OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:13, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was not aware that those didn't count. I have only tweeted with Mega twice to ask if it was ok to even think about putting up a wiki for him. I did not want to put up one without his consent and then have his publicists contacting me. Other than providing me the ability to use the image on the page- he had no involvement. I did all the research based off what was on his IMDB resume and scoping the internet. I am not related nor a publicist. I have never met the subject. It saddens me that this may be deleted but I understand that there are guidelines to adhere to. Mozartchic01 (talk) 20:37, 21 October 2011

(UTC)Mozartchic01

Comment Removed my twiitter/tumblr comment since it is not usable for notability 70.239.9.198 (talk) 01:27, 29 October 2011 (UTC)mozartchic01[reply]

Delete - not yet notable; see WP:TOOSOON and WP:UPANDCOMING. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:05, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per Orangemike. --68.9.119.69 (talk) 20:39, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: Notable per Mozartchic - Ret.Prof (talk) 21:17, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So you're agreeing that "fan sites and lots of Twitter followers" is a valid reason for keep? OK then. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:23, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I really did not like the personal attack on Mozartchic. I will let closing Admin decide re notability - Ret.Prof (talk) 21:26, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's no attack here. Mozartchic is a new user; you are not. I find it odd that you pop up out of nowhere on AfD noms that I've made (and I don't make that many) with !votes that fall squarely in the arguments without arguments camp. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:32, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have changed my "vote" so you won't think I am stocking you. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 21:42, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.