Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timothy Woodward Jr.

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 due to significant changes during the discussion, which means (following two relists) I can't see any reasonable prospect of finding consensus in this debate. Crunchydillpickle and Timothy, if you believe this still doesn't meet GNG/N after this rewrite, I'd encourage you to re-nominate and the new article can be discussed. (This close of no consensus is explicitly without prejudice to a renomination immediately if so desired.) Daniel (talk) 01:51, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Woodward Jr.

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Was cleaning up some promotional, unsourced edits from an IP editor who said the subject was their boss. Couldn't find sources to back up most of the article's statements. Most of the sources are blogs and YouTube interviews ([1] [2]) or press releases about the subject's work. [3][4]). The only sources that seem remotely useable are this one-paragraph PR-esque interview ([5]), a mention of his 2008 birthday party in Star-News ([6]), and an interview with the pop culture blog CBR ([7]) about a movie he directed, Til Death Do Us Part (2023 film). I think he fails WP:N. I'm fairly new to AfD, so apologies if I've missed anything. Crunchydillpickle🥒 (talk) 19:00, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 November 15. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:24, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This is PR but it says he's won an Emmy [8], but I find no sourcing to support this. This could be him, but I don't know [9], super trivial coverage... This in Collider is an interview [10] but that's about all I can find. Oaktree b (talk) 19:44, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, the source #9 PressHerald is indeed about a different person, a then child actor, born in 2006, not the TWJr discussed here, who had directed more than 12 films by the time the first was 11...;D -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:40, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing in Jstor, Gnews, Gscholar or the NYT. all coverage of this person is interviews or trivial mentions. Oaktree b (talk) 19:50, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, Internet, California, and South Carolina. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:22, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Fairly meets WP:DIRECTOR, which states: ""People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards (..)The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series);" TWJr is the director of multiple notable films, all having received substantial coverage, with various films reviewed in Variety, (multiple times) The Hollywood Reporter, DreadCentral, Film Threat, Los Angeles Times (multiple times), etc. On top of this, these reviews (example) are significant coverage on him (not that this is needed to meet the criterion). ~~Will add sources to the page now.~~ Added a few of the numerous existing sources to the page. See for yourself. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:24, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:18, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. I think nom and Oaktree's source eval is correct, sources are mentions, listings, and promo-style articles/interviews, nothing that meets BLPs requirement for strong sourcing from WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. Ping me if WP:THREE sources with SIGCOV are found. // Timothy :: talk 12:50, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topic: Film .-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:30, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:27, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Update. Since the nomination, I have expanded the article, using, if I am not mistaken, none of the sources that are mentioned by other users in the course of this discussion. Best,-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:56, 1 December 2023 (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.