Talk:Kyle Schickner

Proposed deletion

This seems a little dubious to me. This guy's contribution to film isn't so great, and I've certainly never heard of him. I'm nominating this page for speeding deletion. Schatzberg (talk) 19:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I removed the prod tag because it used an invalid reason for nomination. Insufficient sourcing is a reason for a "ref-improve" tag, not deletion. In any case, I've added a number of new sources about the subject and his films from reliable third-party sources like the Los Angeles Times and Southern Voice to beef up the citations you're after (and that the article requires). There's still plenty of work to be done on this article but it's far from any valid criteria for speedy deletion. - Dravecky (talk) 05:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

He's nobody special, and certainly doesn't deserve his own page on Wikipedia. It's more wasted space. Save your efforts for bigger and better things. Definitely deserves to be deleted. Schatzberg (talk) 08:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion

Simply put, this article should be deleted. I am hereby asking that the article be deleted, and for the above listed Davecky to lay off with the threats, or I will report him as well. It works both ways. I am asking Admin to remove this article, because it has no bearing, and the person they are talking about (Schickner) is a nobody. Simply put, Kyle Schickner does not deserve a page here. Has no merit whatsoever. It's more wasted space on Wikipedia. Schatzberg (talk) 16:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion

Delete - body of work doesn't justify any indication of notability plus Kyle doesn't want it here. LonChaney (talk) 20:38, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Schatzberg. There are so many notable filmmakers missing from the Wiki pages, why would you aloow this vanity listing to stand? This should be removed ASAP. It serves no merit whatsoever. I've never even heard of any of these films. Looked them up on Amazon, only one is listed, and besides...that doesn't mean anything. LonChaney (talk) 07:16, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

In this edit [1] you claimed that you are Mr. Schickner PR agent, and now your saying he's not notable? Why the change of mind? --triwbe (talk) 07:21, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

That was a joke, called "inside humor". This guy probably doesn't even have an agent. Come on, are you saying he deserves a page? LonChaney (talk) 07:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

No, just making sure there's no conflict of interests. --triwbe (talk) 07:35, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Clear things up

The claim of lack of notability has been tested and dis-proven by 8 experienced, independent editors. It is clear, read the article, all information is verifiable. This person is notable. If you think that it should be deleted for other reasons then first discuss it here. Otherwise it does not matter if 1000 editors all make the same old failed argument, the discussion is closed and the article stays, Wikipedia is not a democracy. Better to move on.--triwbe (talk) 07:58, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kyle Schickner. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090615051343/http://www.lacitybeat.com/cms/story/detail/gays_gone_wild/7231/ to http://www.lacitybeat.com/cms/story/detail/gays_gone_wild/7231/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:12, 13 December 2017 (UTC)