Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Roecker (2nd nomination)

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. Deletion concerns have been addressed. Reliable sources have been found, establishing the subject's notabiliy. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 03:39, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John Roecker

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

No evidence of notability has been established since first nomination. Laval (talk) 19:32, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, specially as during the first nomination in 2008 User:Cirt DID indeed find and offer evidence to establish notability through news coverage, book sources, a couple scholarly book hits, and additional web sources. My guess is this renonimation stems more from the fact that the article was not improved since then. Adressable issues are not a reason to delete, no matter that someone has not yet done it. With respects, and as we DO have sources, if current state is of such a concern, would it not be better to fix the problem rather than bring it to AFD to force it be done by others. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:46, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources don't establish notability according to the standards of WP. If they had, after all this time, don't you think someone would bothered to use them? The reason no one hasn't is the fact that they simply do not establish notability for this man, whose article appears more like a promotional PR piece than an encyclopedia article. Please do not forget that despite all the absurd and ridiculous articles on WP (many of which are thankfully disappearing or edited into more serious articles) WP is still an ongoing project to develop a free encyclopedia that is useful and informative. This article adds nothing and whatever scant information is out there about this man is certainly not enough to add in favor of the argument to establish notability for him. In the film and documentary business, even by independent standards, he is still a "no name." He has a long, long way to go before achieving the WP level of "notability." Laval (talk) 14:20, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the sources offered by Cirt that resulted in the last keep do indeed show suitable notability per standards of WP. That no one improved the article, and that the article still needs work, is a more a reason to actually adress improvements proactively, than it is to force cleanup via AFD or demand deletion in its lack. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:22, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:06, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As an indpendent film maker his work has been covered in reliable sources. "John Roecker's 'Freaky' Puppet Show" (Washington Post), "Freaky Deaky" (The Advocate), "The Hardest Job in Show Business" (The Advocate), "Manson Claymation Movie" (TMZ). -- Whpq (talk) 16:22, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah... meets WP:CREATIVE. I agree. But we still have the nominator's concern that no one else has fixed up the article to reflect this, and the assumption that because someone else has not done it, that such lack of effort somehow equates to non-notability. Of course, and even if not done within some arbitrary length of time, it is still an addressable issue that does not require deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:22, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm working on it now....--Nuujinn (talk) 22:26, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I think he meets GNG and CREATIVE, basic references are in place, and I removed the fancrufty bits. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:58, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Week Keep - Meeting the General notability guideline, per: [1], [2]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:58, 26 November 2011 (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.