Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Walterschied (2nd nomination)

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2011 February 13.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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 deleted and salted. User:Carolrubensteinesq has been undef blocked for legal threats. Sockpuppetry request made. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:26, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Walterschied

This article makes claims of notability, but provides absolutely no evidence to back it up. It sources three things: the company website, IMDB, and another Wikipedia article...none of which is acceptable to build an article on. A Google search for the name yields 110 results, which appear to be meta type stuff: IMDB and mirrors, networking sites, and similar. There is nothing on Google News. Given that this article has been created, deleted, created, deleted and recreated once more, I'm now proposing Delete and Salt to prevent any more nonsense. Regardless of the previous AfD nomination and recreation, I'd like a firm consensus on this issue. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 23:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt I also did a lot of work in the first AfD [1] to see if this guy was notable; I can barely find out he exists. I found no name hit results in the major Hollywood rags (Variety and Hollywood Reporter.) Seeing as the same article (with essentially, if not exactly, the same content) has been created for a fourth time, it's time for this to be protected against being recreated. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 01:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt as a badly-sourced article on a non-notable subject that's likely to be recreated if the creator's userpage is any indication. Graymornings_(talk) 03:51, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am an Entertainment Attorney in LA with a major firm and I know who Scott Walterschied is as do most people in the industry. So we should delete this page because Vernon and Hunster who are not remotely affiliated with Hollywood say so? That is proposterous!!! One is a Police dispatcher and the other does not say what he does. Scott is a well know producer/former agent at ICM and compared to other Producers on Wilkipedia he is far more important. It is humourous reading Vernon and Hunsters' comments. It's almost like reading comments of people who have some type of score to settle. I respectfully ask the Adminstrator look at these 2 records of malicious attacks on peoples' articles. Many thanks.
Carol Rubenstein, Esq.

--Carolrubensteinesq (talk) 04:37, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And one additional thing to Vernon you are aware Variety online and Variety Magazine have seperate article content as so with the Reporter. His company has won many Emmys and they have been nominated for a Golden Globe and that article was in December 2008 Variety. Your research skills leave allot in doubt as to its' viability. Also a friend told me the Reporter announced a financed/distributed Lions Gates Movie with Scott's name along with Ethan Hawke (you do know who he is right?). Do you need the article mailed to you? Note to Wikipedia; you really need better control so people without knowledge, like Vernon and Hunster, cannot influence credible information. --Carolrubensteinesq (talk) 04:47, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Carol", again you are not registered with the California Bar [2]. Please stop this charade. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 04:51, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nor any bar she claims to be a member of. As a member of the Stonecutters, I must ask you to stop. --Smashville^talk 06:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And I would very much like to know why my name is seemingly being dragged through the mud, when this is a very simple case of an article not meeting the criteria for inclusion on the site. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 04:55, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not satisfy either WP:N or WP:Entertainer --RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 05:42, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:N, no substantial third party coverage in reliable sources, gets a mere 38 unique Google hits (not all of which are about the same person). Hut 8.5 13:12, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt no evidence of notability whatsoever. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:59, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt This person is stubborn, salting is needed. If there is any evidence of notability in the future we can reconsider. Chillum 16:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the article was (per the deletion log) a blatant copyright violation before, how come the exact same text is suddenly not a blatant copyright violation now? We don't keep blatant copyright violations just because they are re-posted. Was the article actually not a blatant copyright violation before? Uncle G (talk) 16:36, 1 January 2009 (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.