Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christopher Scott (choreographer)

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. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:20, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Scott (choreographer)[edit]

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

Struggling to find independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO. Run-of-the-mill person. Promotional article, created by a WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 14:08, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:38, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:38, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:38, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:38, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:38, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see the same text in many nominations by the nominator. When I do my own source check, I see that this guy has two Emmy nominations, which is promising, and not run of the mill. I see a profile in Bustle. I see an article from USC. The current article has a name check source from the NY Times. While not RS, there are two interviews, one of which is in Variety411. This is enough for me to say he meets some basic level of notability.104.163.148.25 (talk) 02:35, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The interviews are not reliable. Name check sourcing from anywhere is not reliable. The article has a source from PR news wire that is not reliable. News sourcing from a university is generally basically a PR move, so not often considered reliable. We lack any of the reliable sources needed to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:13, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TonyBallioni (talk) 00:00, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most of the references are incidental mentions of him, some of them I couldn't see any references. None of the RS focusses on him predominantly. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:55, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Only one, but non-authoritative, reference mentions the subject more than once. Many of the references don't mention the subject at all. Not enough to establish notability.--Rpclod (talk) 02:16, 10 February 2018 (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.