Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steven Thibault

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. Kurykh (talk) 00:21, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Thibault[edit]

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

Delete. Minimally sourced BLP, written by the subject himself in defiance of WP:AUTOBIO, about a film producer. He might certainly qualify for a Wikipedia article if it could be written neutrally and sourced properly, but nothing here gives him automatic inclusion rights just for existing. As always, Wikipedia is not a free LinkedIn alternative on which a person is guaranteed an article just because he exists; reliable source coverage about him in media, properly supporting a notability claim that would satisfy WP:CREATIVE, is required for an article to become earned. Bearcat (talk) 21:18, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article started out as a smash up of this subject and Stephen Spielberg's info including the entire copied Spielberg infobox. I have to AGF that maybe the the info box copy was to use as a pattern, but other editors had to weed out all the Speilberg info. This subject does not nearly meet GNG. Antonioatrylia (talk) 21:38, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only reference I can find at Google News is this review of the movie "Beatriz at Dinner" at 2017 Sundance. To put that into context, this article lists four producers for the movie. Then it lists eight executive producers. Then at last Thibault is listed as one of the four co-executive producers. And that is the only mention I can find in Google News; I know there are other places one can look, but this is indicative of the public profile of somebody in an administrative role. I notice that a huge number of editors have chipped in to try and improve the article already, so I am not convinced of the potential to save it with a re-write (though I would be happy to shown wrong). --Gronk Oz (talk) 01:06, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article subject is just not notable. I also did some searches and like Gronk Oz has noted, there is just hardly anything avaliable to show notabilty. The breakdown of the producer hierarchy is a great analysis. Subject fails WP:GNG. It all strikes me the wrong way with all the Spielberg info, refs, and infobox in the original article creation. I would enjoy hearing from the creator to understand how that could have happened? Antonioatrylia (talk) 01:20, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per above.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:55, 25 March 2017 (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.