Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeffrey Sanzel

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. Sandstein 06:17, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Sanzel

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

This page does not meet Wikipedia's notability requirements.. This person does not have any notable credits that I can find anywhere, and the page has remained a stub with few sources for years.. Why keep it around Soliantu (talk) 22:11, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:58, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The individual meets notability requirements and the page does not meet any of the reasons to delete. Even though it has been a stub for years, lack of attention does not ipso-facto equate to tossing a stub article on a notable indivudual simply because it had not received attention. Per WP:ATD, the article is improvable. A bit of a look shows the individual and his work have been written of in multiple independent sources over a many-years period: news books g-search We have a meeting of WP:CREATIVE and WP:GNG. What is required is effort, not deletion for its lack. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:59, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: sometime after posting the EL " http://news.google.com/archivesearch?&as_src=-newswire+-wire+-presswire+-PR+-release+-wikipedia&q=%22Jeffrey+Sanzel%22 " above, the news.google.com/archivesearch became non-functioning. Please assume a litte good faith that when it was working, it led to the numerous sources my !vote intended. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:07, 21 August 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, Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:21, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Work has begun on this forgoten article for this individual meeting WP:CREATIVE. Immediately found in searches is that his original play From the Fires: Voices of the Holocaust (there's an article just waiting to be written) has received a media attention from 1996 through 2008,[1] and Sanzel and/or his yearly modified stage production of A Christmas Carol continue to be written of in sources such as The New York Times, among others.[2] That many are behind pay walls is a hindrance, but WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE are met and we have a reasonable presumption toward notability. We should not be deleting the improvable simply because there is work that needs doing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:47, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: after posting the EL " http://news.google.com/archivesearch?as_user_ldate=1989&as_user_hdate=2011&q=%22jeffrey+sanzel%22&scoring=a&q=%22jeffrey+sanzel%22&lnav=od&btnG=Go " above, the news.google.com/archivesearch became non-functioning. Please assume a litte good faith that when it was working, it led to the numerous sources my update report intended. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:07, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: this AfD was transcluded on a daily log until 21 July, when it was accidentally erased. I'm relisting it here under today's log. Hut 8.5 10:50, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The NYT reference from 1997 is nominal at best. It's a cursory listing that the NY Times typically does about performances, and it mentions the subject in passing. I don't see any indications of notability past a mere mention. Schmidt, I realize you have lower standards for inclusion than most, but this seems especially low. Shadowjams (talk) 11:09, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The 1997 one was required per WP:V. The included 1989 one from The New York Times is (as DGG notes below) an example of those many far more substantial. As as for the slight slur, my "inclusion standards" are per WP:V, WP:N and WP:RS. No higher. No lower. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:53, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The NYT refs for the other two articles seem, on the basis of the quotes, to have been substantial. The nom's argument that it hadn't been improved is, of course, directly contrary to policy; their argument that they could find no sources is no longer valid because sources have been found). DGG ( talk ) 12:14, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Pass WP:ANYBIO--Cavarrone (talk) 13:41, 20 August 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.