Talk:Eric Stoltz
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ] | ||
This section is an archive of the discussion surrounding a page which was kept following no consensus to delete on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion.
Same reasons and same user as above. Said user has no other prior edit history, at least until he or she logs on to another public computer. - Lucky 6.9 00:48, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. This should be able to grow into a reasonable article. Acegikmo1 02:43, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. I've expanded it slightly. Chuq 03:12, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. A Google search shows over 55,600 entries for "Eric Stoltz" [1] including a sizable IMDb entry [2] indicating a lengthy acting career.Seaeagle04 03:34, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Certainly keep. Everyking 04:13, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Keep -- Chris 73 | Talk 04:18, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Looks great now. My concern centers around how many of these we're going to have to fix. I can just imagine what this person would do with, let's say, Judy Garland: "Judy Garland is an actress who stars in movies like The Wizard of Oz and Meet Me In St. Louis." How useful is that? - Lucky 6.9 04:44, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Yeah, let's image there is no Judy Garland page, and someone comes around and creates a one-line stub. A few minutes later, Lucky 6.9 comes around, places in on VfD, and in due time, the article gets deleted. Then Wikipedia is left with no page at all about Judy Garland. How useful is that? Full articles are better than stubs, but IMO, stubs are better than no articles at all. Abigail 12:45, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Perhaps you didn't read my other comment. I voted to keep the article in its current form. And, while I wholeheartedly agree that a stub is better than no article at all, no article is better than a useless stub from which another user would have to start from scratch anyway. We're discussing that same subject in regards to the Guelph botany article. I should also point out in light of your current tone that I've tried everything I can to help, not hinder this person and that a sysop politely suggested posting these on VfD. If the general consensus is to keep and expand these as they come in, that's perfectly acceptable. - Lucky 6.9 15:52, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Further comment: If this was just about one or two articles, these wouldn't be here by my doing. These stubs come in on a regular basis. - Lucky 6.9 16:00, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Since Lupin has turned it into an article, it looks like a keep (assuming she played a significant character in at least some of the things on the filmography) Average Earthman 16:49, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. List on Cleanup. RickK 19:46, Jun 3, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. --Starx 05:00, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Weasel Wording
"Eric Stoltz (born September 30, 1961) is an American actor widely considered one of the most prominent and diverse performers in independent film." Taken from the beginning of the article. That widely considered-part seems pretty much like weasel wording for me. MacMoney 20:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
