Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Vallo

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 keep. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:12, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

James Vallo

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

This subject fails WP:GNG unambiguously (on both substantial coverage, and multiple independent reliable sources), and does spectacularly worse under alternative criteria at WP:CREATIVE and WP:NACTOR. His biography seems to have been created by friend and colleague Z.D. Smith, whose sole purpose is unapologetic promotion. JFHJr (㊟) 19:20, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative keep In doing some WP:BEFORE for this person, it does appear that he and his filmmaking have been covered in multiple reliable sources,[1][2] and this would then give us a tweaking at WP:ENT and WP:FILMMAKER through WP:GNG. But until I sit down and dig through the sources to determine whether or not the article can be improved, my keep will only be "tentative". While the article author has now been notified of Wikiedia's concerns toward WP:COI, and has now engaged in explanation and discussion, it is worth noting that (as of this comment) his last edit to the article was seven months ago on November 19, 2011.[3]‎ If he continues to stay awy from the topic, we might then be less concerned abou 7-month-old edits and instead address concerns through regular editing. If unable to determine notability guidelines as being met, even if weakly, I will be back to strike and then go for a delete. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:30, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:50, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep A fairly small article like this seems justified by the source material.Squareanimal (talk) 12:48, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 03:49, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Independent sources (local newspaper articles, mostly) exist and just barely pass muster as evaluative and appropriate for citation. Snow (talk) 06:03, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — What sources in particular indicate he passes WP:NACTOR? What substantial coverage is any good for a biographic entry you'd expect to see in an encyclopedia? All I find are two bit roles and passing coverage. The deeper the coverage, the less it is about this person. JFHJr (㊟) 16:48, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay in response. Here are the sources I was referring to: 1, 2, 3 - all highly localized in relevance and not exactly dripping with biographic info, but they do seem to give some detail as to his background and analyze his work and production efforts a bit. To be honest, I completely missed your mention about the WP:COI issues, but speaking solely to the sources, they are borderline, no doubt, but going by the letter of policy I'd give them a narrow pass. Snow (talk) 06:16, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep – per the sources presented above by User:Snow Rise. This person appears to meet WP:BASIC. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:49, 11 July 2012 (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.