Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don Schechter

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. slakr^\ talk / 07:12, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don Schechter

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I came across this via the AfD for one of his films. After looking at his article and searching for sources, I can't really see where he passes our notability guidelines at all. I can't find where he, his company, or his work as a whole has received any coverage in places Wikipedia would consider to be a reliable source. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:38, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 04:03, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I thought about nominating this article for deletion, but I settled for stubbing and tagging it. It probably should be deleted, though. It was a clear resume before I stubbed it, and there's no coverage in reliable sources that I can see. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:03, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG due to lack of coverage from reliable third-party sources. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 04:58, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:21, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:21, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - Fails GNG. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 13:38, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been significantly changed since the initial resume style page that was created awhile back. It has been rewritten with references to media outlets. Specifically national media coverage for Transcendent Man, A Good Whack, as well as "on air" personality for About.com", and the Ig Nobel awards. §Wikisneelix §Wikisneelix — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikisneelix (talk • contribs) 14:29, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Off hand, I can tell you that About.com is not considered a reliable source. Also, I count three references to Wikipedia pages and at least four IMDb references. These are also not considered reliable sources at all. iTunes is also essentially a primary source. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 15:08, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well... About.com can be used as a reliable source in very, very specific circumstances. The coverage would have to be by someone who is a staff member for the site, as opposed to one of the thousands upon thousands of people who blog on it regularly. However the key here is that the coverage would have to be about Schechter, as opposed to him being one of the people who write for the site- whether as a staff member or as a blogger. Simply working for someone doesn't give notability in the majority of situations unless the job is considered to be notable in and of itself, such as being President of the USA. As far as the film mentions go, the problem is that I don't really see where Schechter himself is really mentioned. Being a staff member on a film doesn't always mean that you'll gain notability for said film, because ultimately to show notability you'd have to show where he's getting at least some mention in the article. The reason behind this is because there are hundreds of people who work on a film and I could serve as best boy on Avatar, but that doesn't mean that I will automatically gain notability because I was associated with a notable movie. As far as the Tonya Harding film, I don't see where the documentary is really mentioned in the source given. If they aren't mentioning the film and/or its director/creator, then odds are it was a 1-2 second clip that was shown without any sort of mention of the documentary or its maker. That's considered to be a WP:TRIVIAL mention and those can't give notability regardless of where it is or how many trivial mentions are given. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 02:23, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please be aware that most college awards aren't seen as notable enough to keep an article on that basis alone. I'll also be honest and say that adding a ton of sources doesn't automatically give notability, because we will still have to check to see if the sources are usable to show notability in the first place. If they're WP:PRIMARY, WP:TRIVIAL, don't mention Schechter, or are in places that we can't use as a reliable source, loading the article down with links to various places won't make him seem more notable- if anything, in most cases it works against the article rather than for it. I'll weed through them later and see if there is anything usable. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 02:29, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As much as I understand how staff members of a site would have more credibility than normal users, WP:RSN has declared About.com unreliable..... multiple times..... XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 02:30, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've heard that we can use their reviews of films, which is really the only time I use them in general. I'll ask at RSN and see if those would be usable. (Not that this director has any via them, but for future knowledge.) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:17, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per WP:BARE - there is at least a few sources that could be used. If this is kept, I have proposed merging the articles on his films into the main BLP; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ascendants. Bearian (talk) 16:25, 13 May 2014 (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.