This article was nominated for deletion on 20 March 2007. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Biography Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Archives

Archive1 - June - October 2006

should they all be grouped into the same category?

Yes they should, I think I'm going to reorganize the page to work that way. Otherwise this reads as a day to day journal of every call he makes. (Optigan13 06:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Folks, this is an encylopedia, not a fan site. Although I believe Eric the Midget deserves an article, we do not need a day by day recap of his appearances, negotiations, etc. The The Sal and Richard agreement section seems the worst. --Bill.matthews 18:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. In order to clean up this article, the day to day summary of that Eric did every time he called in to the Stern Show should be replaced with an overall summary of what happened in the past. The Sal and Richard agreement should be in the article but it should be cleaned up. Plus, I wonder if it was Eric The Midget himself who put up all of those Wikipedia banners stating how poorly written this article is.

So the issue at hand is not notability, rather readability and conciseness? If not then maybe I'm missing the point? Who brought up notability anyway? If this is a case of someone who is notable getting an article "too big for his britches" then put that instead of bringing his notability into question. By the way, the article isn't that badly written. We'll make a good page of you yet. Its also noted that the "eric bangs tabitha" cartoon is up on youtube.com and is probably of interest to those researching eric (why would you?).

I cleaned up the article in general.. personally, I like the detailed timeline. I think it establishes Eric's hypocritical attitude towards the show nicely. I'd say it's 'cleaned up', myself.. MGlosenger 10:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added citations using the show rundowns and infobox, but I'm not certain the show rundowns are ok as the only source. I'm not sure about the infobox to use from the People_infobox_templates selections, I'm going between actor as he likes to call himself, celebrity, and person. This article still needs to be trimmed as you can see from all the citations I included. This thing still reads like a long running list of events instead of a broad biography. Optigan13 06:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am believe the article should remain. People who do not know about Eric the Midget may want to look up and read about why he is in the situations he is currently in on the Stern Show. Maybe there should be separate articles for each major event. Chris01720 06:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly Eric the Midget is a person of interest who is worthy of having his own Wikipedia page. 12:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Who deleted that section? That is a pretty significant event for Eric, ordering that. If him wanting to be roasted is worthy of a paragraph...so is that. I'm gonna re add it.

I better not sign my name, I don't wanna suffer the same fate as Jerry. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tofilmfan (talk • contribs) 05:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

• Walk through the history section to see who deleted it.[1] I understand the logic. This same issue came up with "The Howard" thing. We don't need to add day to day summaries of the show, that is what the rundowns or Mark's friggin are for. American Idol, balloons, and his general history of what most consider being an ingrate is important to he is, and were established over long periods of time. One or two days of wanting to be roasted or to have someone bumped off is a little more questionable. For me the same holds true of the nicknames section, it has become sprawling, and people just try to beat each other to see how many nicknames they can put up first. I'm planning on either removing nicks or moving them into footnotes, since that attracts listcruft. Also as you can seen, even if you don't sign your posts a person or a bot might sign it for you. (Optigan13 08:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • Thanks Optigan13, I was indeed the one who removed it, and cited why in the history. If you feel it's significant then I won't revert, but we should review it a month or two from now for historical significance. This article has a history of growing with every call Eric makes. --Bill.matthews 11:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually the thing I'd like to try and add is historical context for Eric including how he first came to the show, and how he established himself. The farthest back I remember him is around the time of the move (2004,2005), does anyone have a better estimate? It's important to note how he came to the show, and to establish how his identity on the show initially came to be.(Optigan13 21:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Eric's first appearance was sometime around 1999 I believe. I know Marks friggin talks about it, but you'll have to hunt it down.Hoponpop69 00:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first appearance I could find was on Mark's Friggin(MF) on the September 2002 date I put. The way MF described it that was Lynch's first appearance, at least the first where he was recognized and called Eric the Midget. I think the next thing I saw that needs to be put in is Stern's attempts to get Lynch dates. I'm just trying to fill out Eric's back story so it doesn't have as much bias towards recent stuff. Optigan13 05:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think this was worth it's own section, however since it was designated a section I cleaned it up and added sources. 20:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I gave it it's own section until we could figure out what was going on. I'll try and clean up and refine the cites some more later today. You need to change the name of the citation, right now you re-used the 2007-01-04 cite, so the citation from that date is out of whack. Optigan13 21:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that Optigan, I'll fix the citation for today's date. (Tofilmfan 22:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I just removed it, it's over the top and not notable. Remember this is a Living Person, show a little bit of restraint. LilDice 23:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]