Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nate Thomas

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:00, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nate Thomas

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

No significant coverage, blatant self promotion, not notable, poor and inadequate sources other than his own bio page, fails WP:SPIP Tflags23 (talk) 03:32, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's marginal whether he meets WP:CREATIVE as director of East of Hope Street: currently the article on the film is poorly sourced, but according to Rotten Tomatoes it did receive 3 reviews, though they are now offline.[1] I don't think he meets WP:SCHOLAR for his professorship[2]. There are brief press mentions[3] and he's occasionally quoted as an expert[4]. But it's rather insubstantial. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:16, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This was obviously written by Thomas himself or one of his associates. Note that much of the article was written by User:Hcrtv006 who wrote exclusively on Thomas, East of Hope St, and adding Thomas's name to other articles. --GHcool (talk) 19:07, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - this subject is fairly marginal as far as notability, and assuming good faith, I think there is a potentially good start here. Can this be userfied or rescued? Bearian (talk) 22:13, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | speak _ 15:18, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There are a lack of independent sources that cover the Professor Thomas in any depth. Fails WP:BASIC, and specifically WP:ANYBIO as the subject has only been nominated for one Emmy.- Mr X 17:45, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The subject is [[WP:BARE| notable although marginally. He is an academician in media and quoted in various printed articles including previously mentioned by talk here as well as the Los Angeles Daily News [5] and San Fernando Valley Business Journal [6]. These publications would not quote the subject if not considered an expert. He won an Emmy Award, the most coveted award in that industry. [7] Assuming good faith, I would love to be helpful in rescuing the article vs. immediate deletion. --Prease (talk) 9:54, 27 June 2014 (UTC)— Prease (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Let us note that, by the source linked above, that's a regional Emmy, not a national one. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:58, 27 June 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.