Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jake Lloyd-Jones

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. So Why 14:52, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Lloyd-Jones[edit]

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

Non-notable person. Lack of reliable sources that are significant and independent of the topic. Fails WP:GNG - TheMagnificentist 06:03, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:15, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:16, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:16, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Article fits notability criteria under creative professionals item 3 "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 an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Article references multiple reliable sources including Sydney Morning Herald and Australian Broadcasting Corporation. DarkyT (talk) 07:39, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DarkyT: Meeting a subject-specific guideline criteria does not necessarily mean the article must be kept. "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." The SMH and ABC sources are not significant, they're about an event with trivial mentions of Jake Lloyd-Jones. - TheMagnificentist 11:27, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep Does not strictly meet sufficient WP:NEXIST for GNG. However, does have some somewhat important contributions to social comment and societal education, and is I believe sufficiently interesting to a wide range of people to have an encyclopedic entry. This is one case where GNG perhaps should be relaxed a little. The Awards section should be trimmed/removed to the awards directly relevant to the subject. Aoziwe (talk) 13:03, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not sure I properly understand what the issue is with this article User:TheMagnificentist? The guy is notable enough that we learned about his work at university so what's the basis for saying he's not notable enough? Subject of the article has created or co-created quite a few documentaries and other TV programs including some very notable ones like The Chaser which is very famous here in Australia. The references you say are just trivial mentions prove that the information in the article is true so I don't really understand the problem? The Notability guidelines say "People can be notable if they meet any of the following guidelines. Failure to meet these standards is not proof that a subject should not be included." However this does meet the guidelines anyway. Item 3 says in full "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work. This work has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length movie" Well reference 4 proves a feature length documentary was made about his work. Hope that will be enough for you. DarkyT (talk) 14:12, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:NB: I've found two radio programs which refer to using this wikipedia article in their research about this film maker so it is of interest to people I think Skruins and Co Breakfast Show and The Andy Social Podcast at omny.fm

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:21, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 04:58, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One last time for the road
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:32, 28 August 2017 (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.