Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Q. Schmidt (actor)
As someone who has no interest in this article at all (I have never heard of Michael Q. Schmidt or user Cumulus Clouds, rarely watch films, have no tv, and live on a different continent) let me just suggest the truth is probably somewhere in between. The actions of Cumulus Clouds do not look to me as if they are necessarily wrong when seen in isolation. I don't know about our usual practice in this area, but it seems logical that only a very small minority of actors are sufficiently notable that Wikipedia should have an ''extensive'' filmography. So an editor who is in a hurry may be justified to remove an extremely long filmography altogether, when it's not easy to establish what is actually relevant. It is also true that there is a general problem with references to self-published sources. Cumulus Clouds removed them, citing  as a reason, which is sort of justified when read in conjunction with . This kind of source ''may'' be used but is generally discouraged. Using these sources is far from being a #Non-controversial edits|non-controversial edit, and here they were used to substantiate the kind of claim that would be easy to spin (meeting with artists) or to fake (200) with impunity even by a relatively well-known person. #How to handle conflicts of interest applies here, especially the subsection "Primacy of basic content policies" and its last sentence
— NONE, NONE
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:AUTO||WP:COI||WP:COI||WP:COI (Wikipedia:Autobiography)