Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jason Minter

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. COI or not, there is consensus that the subject does not meet GNG. As a few people did mention, the subject's business might be a viable topic, so then this title could possibly be recreated as a redirect to that §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:17, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Minter

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

It is just a few articles about his struggle to keep his mother's killers in jail. There is little significant coverage. Adam in MO Talk 03:21, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Possibly, the restaurant he owns is notable. On the other matter, he is a person who suffered an unspeakable personal tragedy as a child, and deserves our individual compassion. But that horrific crime he witnessed, and his entirely understandable response, do not make him notable enough for a Wikipedia biography. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:58, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fast Keep this topic is about Jason minter as a person. His cafe is notable because of him not other way around. The crime scene is not one time event. It is continuously brought up so it has become notable revolving around Jason Minter. Jason Minter is also producer of The Sopranos. Producer of a show like that is also notable person not inheriting notability, notable as a person. He also appeared in one episode. See his imdb page [1] he has also worked on Men in Black movie, The Tic Code and other shows! Some one working on many productions, have a cafe that is notable because of him (see reference) and have personal event notability is notable person on 3 counts. Google search is full of newspaper reports of data of these 3 counts and 21 google news results, 43 book results. So person is notable. One more thing. The Sopranos episode D-Girl (The Sopranos) had redlink of this person. I created this topic from there. So the user who put red link also think this person is notable so he can have own topic. This can be consensus. Adamfinmo do not delete anything from topic till this debate is complete. Reference you remove was about show and cafe. More references relate Jason to cafe and show. Everything has reference in biography of living person. So do not remove. --TheSawTooth (talk) 08:11, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He wasn't a producer on the show, and notability arguments based on policy like WP:DIRECTOR are stronger than a redlink. IMDB isn't an RS (especially for a BLP). Widefox; talk 22:21, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Each claim has reliable source not imdb. IMDB is in external link and it was added by AuthorAuthor. --TheSawTooth (talk) 12:45, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Those google search hits aren't even all about him. Widefox; talk 18:25, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Most of them are about him. These are reliable sources in this topic about Jason, his work, his cafe [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16]. --TheSawTooth (talk) 20:43, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The cafe would be a different article (redlinked already). Notability is not WP:INHERITED for him based on the cafe, or the other actors in the episode (I've removed them, and both those sources fail verification). (see below about BLP1E for his notability based on the event). Widefox; talk 15:08, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Subject is quoted often by reliable sources and has been the subject of multiple articles as well as by This American Life. Article needs work but that does not make the subject less notable for Wikipedia. Meets WP:GNG. AuthorAuthor (talk) 16:07, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, article has improved, but he doesn't appear to have a major role passing WP:DIRECTOR. Widefox; talk 22:34, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:DIRECTOR: WP:TOOSOON he was one of several associate producers. He was not the producer as previously stated here - which I've corrected. I don't think he's notable enough for an article being an associate producer (he wasn't the exec producer but just one of the 10-15 others), and only for 21 of 86 episodes along with all the other associate producers on other episodes. His role in the one episode was a Bellman, not a main part (not on first billed list). Article fails WP:V - his title was wrong (and exaggerated his role), we use a primary for his birth, the interview with him is a primary. The restaurant may be notable but not him (yet). Article seems a WP:COATRACK - an almost notable BLP that is used to hang the restaurant and views. If we look at WP:BLP1E for the tragedy, that fails too. Widefox; talk 21:41, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Note to closing admin: There's overwhelming behavioural evidence that there's a massive undisclosed paid editor sockfarm, some linked to Fiverr (see WP:COIN#Bert_Martinez and ANI), with the MO that socks popup on AfDs with Keeps that are waffly / not policy based arguments. Some of the editors have disclosed being paid from Fiverr, others not. Widefox; talk 22:21, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was unaware what I had walked into, Widefox. Based on points made by you and other editors, I am swayed to change to Delete. AuthorAuthor (talk) 00:41, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CommentUser widefox is following my activity on wikipedia without evidence. He has failed to prove anything and now he is here to tag my edit where ever possible. This is harassment because he thinks I am related to subject it can not still change that subject is notable and what AuthorAuthor said before his prejudice is correct. This subject is notable. If Widefox has concern about me he should report me to admin and not waste every one's time here. The wikipedia user who reported me "Rahat" has withdrawn his report at conflict of interest notice board because he also agrees with me. --TheSawTooth (talk) 09:56, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He was not the "producer", but an "associate producer" - the undo [17] repeats the claim which is not supported by the sources. (disruptive editing issues commented here TheSawTooth) Widefox; talk 11:09, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have made correction of associate. You had done other tagging I will not restore that because you are harassing. --TheSawTooth (talk) 11:13, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on edits (and notability), not editors here, thank you. Widefox; talk 15:21, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to speak of AuthorAuthor's comment before Widefox put prejudice in his head that this topic is coming in reliable sources again and again so it is ok with WP:GNG. Birth date is ok about primary but I think AuthorAuthor added birth. I used reliable sources. He is an associate producer and reliable sources are talking about him but not about all other associate producer. Trying to discredit me will not discredit guideline and when reliable source is present you can edit the article if there is concern but deleting it is against policy because it is notable. So I move to suggest to the admin that he should see reliable sources in this page before deleting it. --TheSawTooth (talk) 12:45, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The issues with some sources failing verification and the article being promotional I've addressed on the talk page. Widefox; talk 01:32, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-- we do not usually emphasize criminal matters to this extent, and the associate producer role is not notable at all; however, I think it possible that his cafe is notable, and if it has been covered outside NYC there might be grounds for an article on it. DGG ( talk ) 22:19, 16 November 2014 (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.