Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ron Baratono

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. → Call me Hahc21 00:26, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Baratono[edit]

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

Cannot find coverage which would support a claim to WP:GNG therefore I have to conclude not notable. _nonsense ferret 19:23, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've referenced news paper articles and pages where Mr. Baratono has notability, Mr. Baratono's IMDB has been linked to the article as well and I didn't even do that. That was done when it was accepted after review. The yellow box says it is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. Im confused. What other coverage is needed? It was accepted at first, now youre nominating it for deletion? Why? What should I do to get the article's nomination for deletion revoked? User:jds784

@Jds784: This is the discussion where you have the opportunity to make a case for why the article should be kept, with reference to Wikipedia's guidelines. You may find it helpful to have a read of tips on contributing to deletion discussions, and you will probably want to refer to the general guideline on notability and possibly the specific guideline for actors. The best guarantee of getting the article kept is to provide multiple examples of significant independent coverage in reliable sources per the notability guideline. I understand it seems contrary to you that someone accepted your article at the Articles for Creation review, and then it was nominated for deletion, I have looked at the references provided and searched for any other sources available, and I do not think that the article should have been accepted. Others may, or may not, disagree, including you, and they can all make the case for it being kept, or not, in this discussion. After a few days we'll see what consensus develops. For the avoidance of doubt, IMDB is not a reliable source for the purposes of establishing notability, see guidelines on identifying which sources are reliable --_nonsense ferret 21:36, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I do believe this article should be kept. While Mr. Baratono may not be Mel Gibson or Johnny Depp, he has indeed established himself as a serious actor in the industry and is currently cast for roles in upcoming feature projects as well. He is also a published writer and an accredited inventor (See citations 3 through 8). All of the article's citations have been retrieved. I don't believe this is a case for lack of notability here. User:jds784

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. None of his acting credits amount to much, so he fails WP:NACTOR, and co-inventing the "Combined rear view mirror and telephone" doesn't do much for his notability either. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:45, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Notable and pleanty of sources to back this up.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Makro (talk • contribs)

You'll need to provide a bit more here - notable per which critereon, and relying on which specific sources? --_nonsense ferret 22:22, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the above. Does not meet our guidelines on notability for actors. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 19:50, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Additional sources have been added to appease the question of notability since the article's creation. Items unreferenced and questionable have also been removed resulting in the entry having a cleaner, more direct look for the reader as other users continue to make improvements to the subject matter. Thank you for the edits everyone! User:jds784

You only get the one vote. The question of notability remains wholly unappeased I'm afraid. --_nonsense ferret 22:38, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I figured so about the vote. I was only reaffirming my stance. What else would you suggest to improve this article? User:jds784 18:52, 19 March 2014

I would suggest providing multiple examples of significant independent coverage in reliable sources like national newspapers which cover the biographical details of the subject. Significant coverage would be generally taken to mean at least a few paragraphs about the subject. Insofar as establishing notability is concerned national newspaper coverage is much more persuasive than examples from the local press, since it demonstrates more widespread interest in the subject. Passing mentions or local newspaper articles such as the ones cited in the article are rarely sufficient to establish a case for notability. Regarding the claim to notability as an actor - were there any reviews of the films in the national press which commented on his acting performance in detail such as you would expect for a well-known actor? For the claim for being an inventor - I appreciate there was one line which mentioned his name in the NYT but that isn't significant coverage, so do you have any more in-depth coverage of this invention and the inventor, has it ever been commercially reviewed or exploited? Finally, the claim regarding being a published writer - where did that publication take place? Were the publications reviewed by a reliable source in any depth? It looks to reference works the subject uploaded to youtube and another website, which I don't think should be described as publication in this context. Leaving aside the question of notability, there seems to be a significant amount of content in the article which is totally unverifiable and thereby problematic - the early life section cites no sources at all for example.--_nonsense ferret 23:15, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:19, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I made a good-faith edit to help cleanup the article toward making it encyclopedic instead of promotional by removing uncited and unknown titles of poetry, and User talk:67.149.35.190 reverted it. Rather than improve the article, 2 editors, including the one who reverted my edits, are adding unsourced trivia. The article includes that Baratono is acting in "numerous projects presently in pre-production" (Wikipedia is not a place to include the future) and that he was cast "with George Clooney in Ides of March as a dining guest." Several other minor roles like that are mentioned. Does not pass WP:GNG. Thus, delete. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 07:36, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was reverted by Baratono himself and citations put in by me. You noted you deleted the publications section due to lack of references. Well now it has them. Better than not, wouldnt you say? -Jds784 (talk) 13:28, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

things that would make a poem worth mentioning would be independent commentary from multiple well known literary magazines or national newspapers, or books which you would find in a library. --_nonsense ferret 13:37, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not "better than not." Your-Poetry-Dot-Com is not considered a reliable source; anyone can post poetry there and then claim that it has been published, but that is not a literary publication. The poetry titles remain unreferenced. Thank you. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 17:33, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - of all the references, only two contain independent, in-depth coverage. The coverage is very local, only. Does not meet WP:GNG. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 15:56, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nominator. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:50, 27 March 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.