Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lucas Baiano

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 no consensus to delete, which defaults to keep. As Brewcrewer points out, this individual's verifiable claim to notability—at least as far as reliable source coverage is concerned—all relates to a single event. While he may meet the general notability guidelines for separate coverage, the biographical notability guidelines specify that individuals known for one event may not warrant a stand-alone article. He does not verify notability per the criteria for film professionals, set out here.

While not all arguments here for keep or delete are thoroughly grounded in policy and some have been accordingly disregarded, there remain some !votes for both outcomes from experienced editors and at least one single purpose account whose argument reveals an understanding of the concepts behind WP:BLP1E (specifically referenced by Brewcrewer, below). This article needs and will receive a thorough cleaning of unsourced or poorly sourced information, including all unpublished facts. The question of long-term notability may warrant revisiting thereafter.

As a final note, the creator of this article, who may in good faith have twice removed the AfD tags during the discussion (and once restored them personally), demonstrated what can only be interpreted as intentional disruption by removing an argument for deletion from this debate, after having been clearly warned against such behavior here. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lucas Baiano

Lucas Baiano (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

This is a -well written- autobiography that does not seem to meet WP:BIO -- lucasbfr talk 00:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

To emphasize more clearly what I meant (sorry, it was 2 AM): Despite being well written, this is just the story of a kid who met Pdt Clinton for 10 seconds (according to the sources) and made a 3 minutes video on youtube afterwards. The rest of the article does not assert any more notability: the 2005 (he was 14) entrepreneur of the year award is not substantiated (the source doesn't say he won), he worked for some NGO and a director, and hopes to be able to vote... I think what this guy does is great, but it doesn't make him notable in any way. -- lucasbfr talk 08:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong keep I find no reason to delete this article. archanamiya · talk 00:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Looks like it needs citations and the removal of the internal links in the text rather than deletion. Could probably use some trimming too. But nothing that can't be handled with editing. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 00:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non of the references is an actual reference. There are out-links to the top pages for TV programs. There are attempts to link to an individual Google cache of certain archived news articles, but they don't work. Nothing in a Google News Archive or Google Books search confirms the claims in the article. I may be wrong, but the article will need extensive cleanup and proper sourcing to fully satisfy WP:V and WP:N. --Dhartung | Talk 01:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - The intro 'award winning Canadian/American political filmmaker' meets WP:BIO. If the award is disputed then tag it accordingly. ChessCreator (talk) 02:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
It does assert that, but if you look closer to the article, none of the assertions are substantiated. This article looks 100% fabricated. As I said it is well written, but I after the first impression, there is nothing in this article. -- lucasbfr talk 07:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Er, I would rather hope it depends which award(s) we're talking about, and whether the claim can be sourced. So? – Luna Santin (talk) 07:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment Yes, unsubstantiated claims about award should be marked {{fact}} but it does not warrant an Afd at this stage. ChessCreator (talk) 11:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Just so we're clear, your argument the article should be kept is based on an unsourced claim that he won an unspecified award? – Luna Santin (talk) 22:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Is it possible to vote "strong whatever"? Just curious. —Quasirandom (talk) 03:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak delete: Awfully lavish praise to be heaped upon someone behind the camera who has done a few things. Lumiere Films is significant, but is a person working there significant? The films he has done are on the low end of things, does he pass? I.e. this is a really bad mash note to a guy who is not himself biographically significant yet and who does not substantially stand out from the crowd. Utgard Loki (talk) 14:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. It won't surprise me a bit if this guy ends up notable enough for an article in time, but at the moment his notability is largely confined to the fact that he's been in the background here and there a bit. The lack of real substantiation for the claims being made in the article is a concern, too. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 02:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong keep This is in my opinion/and a writer as my profession, I honestly must say this is a good BIO on the him, he also lists the national sources on his facts, and I know some of you said its "one story about him and politics" but that I think is just the one event that makes his BIO sustainable, without that than I would have to look over it again, but if your saying a producer working with the Clintons, and the facts behind it isn't worthy of a Keep, than I am lost.Spyrokid (talk) 03:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)Spyrokid
— Spyrokid (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep Must disagree with a few of the comments, he is not in background news if you actually read a few of the articles, I can see how some may see this as a self-bio, but I just looked at a few of the articles, it has been in the media all over Canada and as well as the U.S. I work for a television station in Vancouver, Canada, and we were actually trying to get him on our morning show to speak on his success. I think some people got confused because a few of the links looks like they seem to expire after a week, so thats why a few did not work, (so I am guessing, looking at the ones that are now on). But I cannot see any reason for this article to not be on.Maggie231 (talk) 04:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)maggie
— Maagie231 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
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.