Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bobby Alto

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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 14:59, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Alto[edit]

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

Only hits on Google Books are directory listings or false positives. "Alto & Mantia" turns up <100 hits on Google. IMDb credits are almost entirely bit roles. Claims notability as having recorded a novelty song that was issued in Mad, but that song is also at AFD for lack of notability. Absolutely no sources of substance to be found. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:45, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a long and illustrious career. Googling subject yields a good number of hits, including New York Times and Chicago Tribune. This article needs editing, not deletion. Evalpor (talk) 17:24, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ten Pound Hammer - in response to your rather terse private message, here is a hit from the New York Times. It is a review, albeit a not terribly positive review: http://www.nytimes.com/1992/11/20/theater/review-theater-gags-and-songs-in-a-revue-whose-star-is-brooklyn.html?scp=95&sq=Audience+With+Jackie+Mason&st=nyt

Here is another, from the Chicago Sun-Times but it requires payment for the full review. They have at least one more review, FYI: http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=CSTB&p_theme=cstb&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=0EB4224F92EF936D&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM

In reply to your assertion that it is my task to back up claims of references, I think you've got it backwards. I believe it is on you to make sure your nominations for deletions are valid and well-considered. Thanks for the chance to add to the discussion. Evalpor (talk) 18:35, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly notable. Considering that he was most active in the pre-internet era, it's not surprising that he doesn't have a huge presence on Google. But there are a lot of references at Google Books; I added three to the article. --MelanieN (talk) 00:26, 1 August 2010 (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.