Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff Small
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Article was improved sufficiently. Daniel Case 00:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Jeff Small
He may be the COO of Dreamworks Studios, but I can't find a whole lot more than that online. Seems to fail WP:RS and WP:V (that is, I can't verify anything other than the fact that he's COO of Dreamworks). Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 02:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment.
The creator of the Jeff small pageAnother user left this comment on my talk page: "Err, oops? :-) The Jeff small article isn't mine— I just moved the new stub to fix the naming guidelines! — Coren (talk) 02:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)" Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 02:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, very notable executive of dreamworks and before that at revolution studios.Callelinea 03:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Weak delete; notability isn't transitive, but Dreamworks is very notable, and its boss, IMO, does get some notability. Probably not enough for WP:BIO, however.— Coren (talk) 03:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, sufficient coverage of his career in pubs such as Variety. I wouldn't say very notable, and it isn't simply transitive, but COO of one of the largest studios in H'wood is, I think, notable. --Dhartung | Talk 03:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Passes WP:BIO as an important figure in the film industry. Needs expansion, cleanup, etc.-- aBSuRDiST -T J C- 04:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment. I've tried to expand the article -- there just isn't much of anything out there on the 'Net about him. All I can confirm is that he's COO of DreamWorks and nothing else. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 16:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment I added material to the article yesterday including three other companies for which he has worked. It's a perfectly acceptable stub. Lack of expandability is not a rationale for deletion. --Dhartung | Talk 22:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. Perhaps the article should be tagged with {{expert-subject}}, although I think a stub tag covers it.-- aBSuRDiST -T ☺ C- 03:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Perfectly acceptable stub Recurring dreams 08:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep due to recent improvements. Bearian 22:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep; the improved sourcing did establish notability. — Coren (talk) 23:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- 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.