Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Valerio

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 keep. None but nominator favor deletion, but article does need improvement. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 12:07, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Valerio[edit]

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

The references for this article are as follows:

http://www.docmoviemaker.tv/

Subject's own website. Not independent.

http://movies.nytimes.com/movie/439621/Carlo-s-Wake/overview

Directory listing for Carlo's Wake. Not significant coverage.

http://www.variety.com/article/VR105786.html?categoryid=13&cs=1

Listing--no editorial content--as screenwriter of future film.

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0884563/

IMDB directory listing.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/search/imdb_index.jsp?page=/name/nm0884563/

Hollywood reporter director listing.

http://www.interactla.org/site/taravella.html

Passing reference in bio on wife of subject. Not RS, not independent. (Link now inactive)

http://articles.latimes.com/1994-08-29/local/me-32533_1_battered-women

Passing reference in article on his wife. Not significant coverage.

http://www.nytimes.com/1998/07/31/movies/at-the-movies-this-summer-noise-matters.html?pagewanted=2

Brief mentions / quotes in relation to Carlo's Wake. Not significant coverage of either subject or film. Entire editorial coverage of Valerio is "It's a big step for Mr. Valerio, who at one time directed what he described as a porno puppet show for the Playboy channel before focusing on promotional spots for television shows."

http://www.hollywoodclassicsusa.com/listings.htm

Listing as director of Carlo's Wake (no other text) on website of the film's promoter. Not independent, not significant coverage.

http://www.film-festival.org/awardswin00.php

Rhode Island Film Festival website showing this film as a winner. Not a "major award for excellence" per WP:NF.

http://www.film-festival.org/pdf/2000films.PDF

Listing for RIFF. See previous comment.

http://www.theasc.com/magazine/mar99/shooting/pg1.htm

Coverage of Carlo's Wake, with some details on the subject, in specialist industry publication.

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117760173.html?categoryid=18&cs=1

Passing mention in executive moves.

http://www.allbusiness.com/services/motion-pictures/4804524-1.html

Even more passing mention of post described in Variety.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-108883202.html

Directory search results.

None of these sources gives rise to a conclusion of notability per guidelines. Neither does anything I was able to find with Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Note that despite the film festival award, Carlo's Wake doesn't seem to have received any reviews in reliable sources. ^Bongo_matic 03:29, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While the article needs a tidy up, coverage in independent media including NYT seems to indicate notability. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 04:35, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:44, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep while appreciating the nominator's concerns over the condition of the current article, my own impression of the numerous reliable sources available indicate that they can be used in expanding and improving this article.[1][2] Though yes, it is a mess, I believe the article can be improved. --Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:04, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My comment was unrelated to the state of the article. It was based on the cited and available references. If you have any specific references that you think demonstrate notability that would be preferable to GHITS. ^Bongo_matic 08:31, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:02, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It has enough notability, eg NYT. Just needs cleaning up. Kubek15 ^write/sign 17:38, 15 May 2010 (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.