Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kaye Lazar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Proto::► 14:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kaye Lazar

Kaye Lazar (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Kaye Lazar is probably not notable enough for this encyclopedia right now. He is public access talent in Richmond, Virginia. An article about his associate, "Gorgeous George", has already been deleted. --Takeel 18:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Strong Delete per nom. 23 unique Google hits for this nobody, every single one of them Myspace pages, this Wikipedia article and its mirrors, Youtube, blogs and other self-referential sites. IMDB doesn't list him at all, let alone in the uncredited 18-year-old role the article claims. RGTraynor 18:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as NN Bec-Thorn-Berry 21:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Kaye Lazar probably doesn't even know about his entry. I think his partner, Gorgeous George is jealous of any positive thing about Kaye so he wants it removed. To get back at George, let it stay!----nospeedlimit
The above is user's sole edit to Wikipedia. RGTraynor 21:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I regret to inform you that I am not Gorgeous George. --Takeel 14:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - cable access television show host. -- Whpq 22:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This Entry - more than a cable access television host due to a vocal and obsessive international following. RGTraynor is absolutely correct about IMDB not listing Lazar's uncredited role, although Lazar is very clearly visible in the film itself as one of the jurors and his participation in the film is well known among viewers of his show. Lazar's other film acting work consists only of dozens of short films shot by local Virginia filmmakers, none of which would merit IMDB's attention. Here's the thing, though: Lazar and his partner attract attention worldwide despite being on a local Virginia television show due to heavy internet traffic in clips and countless discussions in blogs, which is why I believe Lazar is noteworthy enough to rate a brief Wikipedia article (someone surfing the net might see so many references to Lazar in blogs that he might turn to Wikipedia to find out who this is: I'd bet my life this is happening). Lazar has even been animated into a cartoon video by some German fans (and it's quite funny). The reason Lazar's partner's entry in Wikipedia was removed was not because of lack of interest but because of too much of the wrong kind of interest: repeated vandalism of the site. Lazar's entry, however, hasn't suffered that fate, and I think that his international following merits an entry for Lazar, particularly since Wikipedia literally can't have a site for his partner. If the attention garnered by Lazar's television work were limited to Virginia, I'd say delete the article, but Lazar and his partner have a surreally vocal following in Europe, which I think makes the difference and makes Lazar's entry well worth keeping. Storyliner 23:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Unfortunately, the assertion that this fellow has a vocal international following or "countless" discussion in blogs falls pretty flat when you only have 23 Google hits for him, the assertion that his role in that film was genuinely important bucks against that the IMDB entry lists about a dozen uncredited actors, none of whom are Lazar. If you can't satisfy WP:V, then no statement can be made. RGTraynor 14:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment: I never said that Lazar's role in the film was important, it's an uncredited nonspeaking role (the very definition of unimportance), I only pointed out that he certainly is in the film and quite clearly visible; it's germane only in that Lazar occasionally discusses the experience on his show. What I do think is noteworthy, however, is the sheer multiplicity of blog references to Lazar in both Europe and the United States, as well as the animation I mentioned. Perhaps part of the purpose of Wikipedia, in the current digital environment, is to provide an online reference for people to look up a television entertainer if they keep seeing that person repeatedly referred to in many blogs and online video clips being posted across the world.Storyliner 20:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment - multiplicity of blog references is not a factor when trying to determine reliable sources for the purposes of verifiability which represent the policies and guidelines. -- Whpq 20:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep after looking up what Storyliner said. Yep. Its all there. If his don't make wiki we got lots of cleaning to do.--Xiahou 02:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment: How did you look up the claims in the article? There are no references cited. --Takeel 11:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment - We have lots of blog entries, but theses are not considered reliable sources. If somebody can dig up these sources, then I'd reconsider. -- Whpq 13:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

DON'T DELETE---It's the internet, stupid! one blogged entry on ask.com or google is as reliable as your best friend's band's website or ex-girlfriend's list of recent dates with all their negatives! cyberspace is ethereal...and that's just about how much of it is verifiable. Thus, Kaye Lazar is no better or worse than any other performer with a limited number of listings. This is reminiscient before I got tenure, when I had to go to the dean and present to him all the books I wrote. Even though, the faculty was impressed with the stack and my photo on the back cover, they had no intention of ever reading my books. Let Kaye Lazar's entry remain on Wikipedia.---nospeedlimit

Comment - If I understand the argument correctly, you beleive that nothing on the Internet is reliable so this means that the entry for Kaye Lazar should be kept since verifiability shouldn't be a concern. That's not consistent with with wikipedia policy of verifiability. -- Whpq 20:09, 14 December 2006 (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.