Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jesse Peyronel

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. per the arguments that WP:BIO isn't met, rather than G5 SmartSE (talk) 21:28, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Peyronel[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

per WP:G5 LADY LOTUS • TALK 14:55, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP well sourced. notable enough to be reported by the trades (hollywood reporter). has directed and written a film with a major star, wrote episodes for major tv networks and is currently writing and developing a major comic book into a feature lenght film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.79.89.102 (talk) 09:44, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is not her being well sourced or notable enough, the problem is it was created by a blocked/banned user per WP:G5 LADY LOTUS • TALK 13:38, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Admin comment: Creations by blocked users don't need to be deleted, and in this case I think it'd be worth having a discussion as to whether WP:G5 should be applied or the article should be allowed to stand (given its sourcing). However I'm not so sure it meets the notability criteria, so could be deleted for that. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:12, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Checking the sources shows two things. First that the sources are, generally, either passing mentions or are not WP:RS, or both, and second that the person is not yet notable. When they are they can have an article here, just not yet. Fiddle Faddle 09:05, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the sources that are listed, only about 3 of them are reliable as from the NY Times and Hollywood Reporter and it's more about the film she is working on and not her. She probably will become notable once she directs and produces more films but right now, per IMDb she's only written 4 credits (2 of them are shorts), directed 2 films (1 short); and produced 3 films (all shorts). I don't find that notable enough for a Wiki page. LADY LOTUS • TALK 12:25, 6 February 2014 (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.