Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe DeRosa (comedian)

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. Michig (talk) 06:34, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Joe DeRosa (comedian)[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:N guidelines. The article contains no WP:RS because there aren't really any out there. If you Google him its really just his stand up gigs. Nothing showing why he is notable. The article really just shows that he has only been an extra before. - Galatz (talk) 20:49, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While the article may not have enough sources, you can notify people with the {{ref improve}} (or {{BLP sources}} in BLP pages), and he seems to be notable for various events, and part of your argument seems to be WP:GOOGLEHITS. --ToonLucas22 (talk) 20:54, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:06, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:06, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Reliable sources DO exist and can be added with the proper prompting. DeRosa is a published author with television and movie writing credits. If DeRosa's article disappears over the arguments of notability, there are several stand-up comedians with the same or less credits on Wikipedia that could and should follow. Once again, if the case is being made on reliable sources, we should allow for those sources to be added. Deleting the article is not the solution. My personal opinion, in seeing the edit history of the nominator, is that this is a possible attempt by an Anthony Cumia fan to discredit DeRosa. Cumia fans have been harassing DeRosa via Twitter and vandalizing DeRosa's Wikipedia page since the two got into a disagreement in September 2014. To me, this seems like a passive aggressive way of continuing the attack on DeRosa. NJZombie (talk) 02:42, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My edit history should show that I work hard on tons of articles. I have nothing against Joe DeRosa, and if you look at the talk page I said that I dont think that the argument should be included here. I don't think it should be because its immaterial and makes no baring. I have nothing against him, I think he is a funny comedian, I just dont think he is notable. Not every author is notable, not every writer is notable, what makes him more notable than any other? - Galatz (talk) 03:34, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not impossible that I'm incorrect. It's just the impression I get based off your multiple edits to the Anthony Cumia Show article and the trend of that show's fans attempting to disparage Joe every chance they get. As far as what makes him notable, it's no one single accomplishment, such as being published. It's the combination of being a published co-author of a book with two other notable comedians with a list of other accomplishments. Being a writer on the Pete Holmes show and performing the one of the show's standout recurring bits, being featured in two Comedy Central specials, being a a voice actor in GTA V (one of the highest selling video games of all time), appearing on notable shows such as Inside Amy Schumer, Sullivan & Son, Louie and, most recently, Better Call Saul. These were not simply "extra" roles as a guy in the background. Add to those being a frequent contributor to Red Eye where he appeared over three dozen times. He's just as noteworthy as comedians like Kurt Metzger and Jay Oakerson who have done similar work and rightfully have Wikipedia pages as well. Are we going to take all of their pages down as well? If not, this deletion request seems awfully frivolous and biased. NJZombie (talk) 23:52, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry you feel I am biased, but if you go through my history, especially with the extensive history on the hot button Israel/Palestinian topic, you will see that I make a lot of edits to fix articles to be WP:NPOV. Just because I have a feeling in my head, I feel that wikipedia is supposed to be a place where people can come and get educated on the topic, not educated on my POV.

As for the topic at hand my criteria for suggesting deletion is based solely on WP:N and more specifically WP:GNG. In order to be notable they must have Significant coverage which I do not believe Joe DeRosa does.

If you read WP:AUTHOR, I do not believe the book they wrote (which as a side note I own and loved), meets those criteria. It might have been read by stand up fans, but it had very limited success in general.

Check out WP:ANYBIO, what major contributions has he made to the field? There are tons of people who have written for TV shows, appears on shows, etc. Although he has done it several times, it does not make him notable. Nothing he did on them was very notable. If you want to see more specially what I mean, read WP:ENTERTAINER. He didn't have significant roles. I would not consider him having a large fan base or a significant "cult" following, but if you disagree what is your basis for his large cult following? None of his appearances would meet the criteria of unique, prolific or innovative contributions.

I hope this helps you understand that this is coming from a complete NPOV standpoint. The reason this article has no WP:RS used as sources is because there are none out there. He might be funny, he just is not notable. - Galatz (talk) 13:35, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It helps me understand nothing as I'm still waiting to hear how these rules affect only DeRosa and not other comedians with articles and similar credits or less. He'll, there are many comics, bands and actors with articles that could be deleted on the pages you're citing but I don't see you proposing other deletions based on lack of notability.It still comes off as a way to get at DeRosa and I'm not buying it otherwise. I've said my piece and put in my vote to keep. Basing reliable sources strictly on the first results of a Google search and then saying none exist and the article should be deleted is ridiculous. NJZombie (talk) 05:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I am on vacation and haven't had a chance to look at the pages you mentioned, but based on my knowledge of Jay Oakerson he is certainly not notable, but without researching him further I cannot say. If I do not feel he is notable I certainly would nominate him as well - Galatz (talk) 00:28, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 16:11, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:16, 21 March 2015 (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.