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, per consensus of established users. --Coredesat 19:56, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Gene Wexler (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Appeared in one movie and died, apparently with no real role in the movie otherwise. I don't think this qualifies as notability. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 18:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC) "keep" I think this article should be cleaned up, but I see no reason to delete it- keep Stumblemonkey[reply]

Strong KeepIF YOU DELETE THIS, I will personally feel the need to file a complaint with the owners of Wikipedia because GENE WEXLER is an amazing person and he is the only person that I can think of that deserves to have his own "section" to say the least on Wikipedia. So if you delete this or want it deleted, THINK AGAIN. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.204.157.62 (talk • contribs) .

KeepI completely disagree with the previous statement. Gene Wexler should be kept on wikipedia for his obvious importance and contribution to society. Nicholas' Gift was a key part of the movement to help support organ donation. Gene Wexler played the young boy, Nicholas, who is possibly the most crucial character in the show. While only having a small part in terms of time, his importance to the movie could not have been more crucial. The only action that should be taken against this wikipedia page is expansion. 205.188.116.201 20:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep-This article can admittedly use cleanup (and I am willing to do it). But the fact is Wexler is an actor with an important role in the movie. And as per the above editor, the movie and more specificly Wexler has made an impact on society. 68.193.95.73 20:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-The argument for deletion is false. This article is very notable as Wexler has made a large impact on society. His role in the movie, although short, flashes back various times. His role is vital in the movie and the plot would be lost without him. Also, he is an established musician, taking part in a variation of Stomp and has been in many musicals and dramas. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.193.95.73 (talk • contribs) .

• Delete One small bit part in one film isn't notable. IrishGuy ^talk 22:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Utterly and completely non-notable, as the above drivel proves. "As compensation for working in the movie, he recieved money" - so, he was paid for it then? Interesting way of putting it. -- Necrothesp 02:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Aside from greatly enjoying Necrothesp's reasoning, it must be said that this is some high school kid who played a part in one non-notable TV movie, thus affirming his complete lack of notability and failure of WP:BIO. -- Kicking222 02:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP! whats with the need to delete this page when there isn't a lack of space on wikipedia. He worked for that role and has a right to be noted. Remeber, in theater, there are no small parts!!!! 67.85.95.121 04:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bold textKEEP - GENE WEXLER IS A MUST KEEP68.193.81.39 04:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete NN person and the article is full of speculation WP:NOT a memorial meshach 04:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP!!!

This is an important thing!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.193.93.71 (talk • contribs) .

• KEEP His role was NOT insignificant. Also, this successful movie raised proftis for organ donors! Wexler has saved lives! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.193.95.73 (talk • contribs) .

Please do not vote more than once. IrishGuy ^talk 15:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP Gene is not only been talented enough to be cast as a lead role in a film, his work besides Jamie Lee Curtis has put him in the same "club", if you will as Dan Akroyd, Tim Allen, Bette Midler, Lindsay Lohan, Chad Micheal Murray, and many others. Wexler's performance inspired children and adults alike to be organ donors, and one may argue that a TV movie may be more widely viewed than a movie in theatres, being that it is offered for free on TV. The point of the previous statement is, if Ben Afflect and erroneous actors and actresses get their names mentioned on Wikipedia, why does someone who has affected a subject so important, such as Gene, deserve to have their entry deleted. Gene Wexler's article should be KEPT. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.116.64.111 (talk • contribs) .

• Hello. I assume you're all friends with this kid? Unfortunately, being in one movie doesn't make you famous enough for Wikipedia. Good luck with the singing career, though. Delete. --humblefool® 05:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. He is still alive but hasn't done anything since appearing in the movie as the article makes clear. Could possibly be mentioned in the article on the movie. Capitalistroadster 06:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this entry. This article is of no scholarly value and is poorly written. His achievements are comparable to those of all high school students and have made no advancements in any field. This article is the equivalent yearbook entry or a myspace page and that is where it belongs. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CM02459 (talk • contribs) . — CM02459 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Delete, fails WP:BIO. --Dhartung | Talk 09:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not noteworthy per WP:BIO, potential WP:COI. Shimeru 10:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Sounds like a fine fellow, but one tv movie part does not make him notable enough for an article. See WP:N. The closing administrator should note which posts were made by new or single purpose accounts. Edison 20:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP THIS ARTICLE Though the movie was only a TV movie, it still raised much awareness about organ donation. I know a few people who were impacted by this movie and became organ donors themselves. It was interesting to read about the actor who played Nicholas and what he is doing now. Maybe we will see more of him in the future. He did a pretty good job, so i suggest you keep this article!

Delete I'm more noteable than this guy. So's my wife, and she was just an extra for the Beeb. Robovski 01:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Has been in only one movie and that movie is not notable enough to have its own article. Cynrin 03:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: Just because it was only one small part, doesn't mean it wasnt significant. a part is a part, no matter the size. The film, along with Wexler, helped bring transplant awareness up. A reason in itself to keep the young actor, here on Wikipedia. — 67.85.85.44 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Delete Don't know if he's alive or not. Doesn't matter. NN. A minor part in a minor film. How many actors like this are out there? Should each one get a page? How about the minor writers, and minor artists, and minor musicians, and minor athletes, and so on? This should be deleted until the subject has achieved something more.Freshacconci 18:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply You say "until" he has achieved more. This page is continuing to expand as he keeps achieving more. He recently recieved a 96 on his AP Stats test. Before you know it he will be starring in more movies.

"Before you know it he will be starring in more movies." But until he does... (and you should sign your replies for credibility).Freshacconci 20:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Gene Wexler is a fine actor and this movie an inspiration. Please kep this article because it opens awareness about upcoming actors.67.85.82.2 05:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WIkipeadia isn't about awareness of organ donation, cancer, or upcomming actors. Or advertising or making people feel good. It's an encyclopedia. It's about knowledge and information. Gene's main claim to fame is a minor role in a TV movie from 8 years ago. Should Gene get his big break or become a notorious murderer or something actually of notoriety I'm sure we'd be happy to have an article on him. Right now I think I get more hits on Google, and I think I've had more screen time from back when I lived in Chicago - and I'm not an actor. I'm just some guy.Robovski 06:05, 11 November 2006 (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.