Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Carlino

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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:01, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John Carlino

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

Barely known playwright and politician. Does not meet any notability criteria in my mind. bender235 (talk) 12:06, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm coming into this with an open mind. There has been enormously heavy tagging on this one, including simultaneous speedy and AfD flags and a laundry list of style offenses. That the article is a mess is beyond doubt; however, it does appear to be to work of a new editor who is TRYING to footnote correctly about what they believe to be an encyclopedic topic, which get's my DON'T BITE THE NEWCOMERS blood flowing a little. Is this a single purpose COI account? Perhaps. We'll let that lie for now. As to the basic question here, that of notability: HERE is voters guide biographical info. It is essentially a textbook example of self-sourced information, but it still remains the sort of declaration "under scrutiny or oath," if you will, that should be of potential use in BLP footnoting should this close a keep. Still looking... Carrite (talk) 17:25, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As a losing candidate in a city council race, pretty clearly fails the special notability guidelines for a politician. Work as a comedian seems to have escaped significant published attention, and movie industry participation also seems to not rise to the level necessary for encyclopedic biography. Carrite (talk) 17:32, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I got dizzy trying to decipher the References, but Carrite is correct. Even though the article's editing is horrid, there is nothing biographically notable about Mr. Carlino. — WylieCoyote (talk) 03:23, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Firstly, thank you to all those contributors who have helped clean up this submission for the John Carlino page. There are many stylistic problems with this submission but, as mentioned, it is a new submission by a newbie to Wikipedia, me. There are many persons on Wikipedia who, are or were, in the film and theatrical business. That John Carlino has well documented credits in film and theater both as an actor, writer, director and producer should satisfy any scrutiny. My hope is that monetary or popular achievement does not trump artistic achievement. I believe this submission is valid. John Carlino is an upstanding figure in Manhattan, NY film and theater and politics. The references do lean upon internet links yet many of the links referenced are actual publications. I believe as time goes on it will be much more common to have links to web based publications over brick and mortar (paper) publications. Thank you and hope all those who have contributed will consider keeping Mr. Carlino's page on Wikipedia. (talk) 05:48, 12 January 2012 (UTC) Nuance22 (talk) 05:26, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can find no significant coverage about the subject that would satisfy Wikpededia's general inclusion criteria. As a politician, the relevant guideline for inclusion for that aspect of the subject's career would be WP:POLITICIAN. I do not see that any of the inclusion criteria from that guideline are met. His work in film and comedy would need to be evaluated against WP:ENTERTAINER as the most relevant guideline. Again, I don't see any of the criteria her being met either. -- Whpq (talk) 18:05, 12 January 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.