Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julius Wu

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. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:03, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Julius Wu[edit]

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

Non-notable animation director. Beerest355 Talk 18:33, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly passes the long established notability requirements for directors, having played a key part in the creation of a notable work. See WP:ENTERTAINER. A lot of those episodes have their own articles already, since they've been proven to be notable by Wikipedia standards. Dream Focus 00:50, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article is never going to be more than a list of credits and some trivial things. Satisfying one criteria out of those doesn't guarantee notability. Beerest355 Talk 02:39, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whether anyone takes time to expand the article or not is irrelevant. That isn't a valid reason to delete it. WP:NOTABILITY states "A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guideline below, and is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy. A topic is also presumed notable if it meets the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right." So meeting the subject-specific guideline for people means the guy is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. Dream Focus 09:37, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He is a working animation director. As per creative point 3 referenced above, it states "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." I can find no evidence that the episodes he has directed have had such coverage to establish him as meeting this criteria. -- Whpq (talk) 15:55, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 02:09, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While there may not be an abundance of substantial coverage easily available to us online, I agree with DreamFocus that work on these very notable projects establishes notability. Candleabracadabra (talk) 16:31, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very notable? Really? These are just television episodes. There's not really much special about them, as Whpq pointed out. Beerest355 Talk 22:16, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails ENT and GNG, and notability is not inherited from notable shows. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:35, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Really the applicable guideline here is WP:CREATIVE for creative professionals including artists and filmmakers. Wu fits this better than WP:ENT which is for actors etc. While the bar for wp:creative is higher, having directed 11 out of 210 Family Guy episodes seems to me like "..a major role in co-creating...a collective body of work, that has been the subject of ...multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." It's close, but it passes in my book. The article does need proper sourcing, but that's not a reason for deletion. -Wine Guy~Talk 23:17, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "Creative" is in the eye of the beholder. Personally, I think the stuff he's directed is neither art nor memorable, even as TV situation comedy, and furthermore, the critics seem to agree with me. However, good taste is not one of the factors for notability of creative persons. FOX-TV has had a lot of crap on it, and this guy made a bunch of that crap, so yeah, he's notable. Bearian (talk) 16:59, 17 July 2013 (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.