Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trevor Engelson (2nd nomination)

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. At this point, consensus is in favor of deletion, however, DESiegel, once you have access to more sources, I see no reasons here for you not to restore the article to work on it (let's call it a "somewhat soft delete"). Regards So Why 14:08, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trevor Engelson[edit]

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

An article on this person was previously deleted at AfD, and I tagged it for a G4 speedy deletion, as this article, though containing different references, was in my opinion sufficiently identical to the previous article to warrant speedy deletion. The G4 tag was removed, so here we are. I still don't think that the references provide sufficient in-depth sources to support the notability of the person. Deor (talk) 20:54, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not sufficiently notable in his own right. Eagleash (talk) 20:59, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The sources cited were not only different in detail, but different in type. The previous sources all dealt with his divorce and his other romantic relationships, and the concern expressed in the first AfD was that he was being mentioned only for those relationships, which were irrelevant as per WP:NOTINHERITED. The sources in the current version all deal with his work as a film producer, a very different thing, thus addressing the issues raised in the first AfD. Thus G4 did not apply, in my judgement, which was why I declined it. But of course a declined speedy does not establish notability -- that is what this discussion is for. Deor, did you do a WP:BEFORE search before nominating this? If so, what search terms did you use and what did you find? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:26, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I did do some searching before my nomination; and although this source seems to be possibly a significant mention, I didn't find anything that would justify the existence of the article. Most of the possible sources appear to involve his connection to Meghan Markle, which was considered in the previous AfD. Deor (talk) 22:46, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would call that more than a "mention", it looks to be a fairly significant discussion of the "Underground Films" business and Engelson's role in it. There also seems to be a story from The New York Observer dated January 16, 2006 a partial view of which can be found at this page which should count toward notability -- it is from a RS, and seems entirely devoted to Engelson in his role as a businessman, not as a husband or lover. I am trying to get full access. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:46, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. WikiVirusC^(talk) 00:09, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WikiVirusC^(talk) 00:09, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:02, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not sufficiently notable in his own right. ~Geaugagrrl^talk 21:20, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: waiting for the source DES has
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 19:29, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

'comment I had applied for access to highbeam via Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library. They have been in the midst of changing their systems, and applications have been delayed in consequence. I have no more than what is listed above, in particular the partial display at https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-140835421.html which i linked to above. And of course http://variety.com/2011/film/news/underground-films-management-duo-split-1118041935/ also mentioned above. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:35, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is:

http://deadline.com/2011/08/nick-osborne-and-trevor-engelson-splitting-at-underground-films-management-164466/ but that is fairly brief
https://www.allstarbio.com/trevor-engelson-biography-birthday-height-weight-ethnicity-girlfriend-wife-affair-marital-status-net-worth-fact-full-details/ is a bit superficial
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/underground-films-high-school-mentorship-takes-aim-at-hollywood-diversity-944158 is of some value, in my view
Roger Ebert's Movie Yearbook 2011 describes Remember Me, which Engleson produced, as "a well made movie" but takes issue with the general theme of the film. See https://books.google.com/books?id=zXQqF1qFnjsC&pg=PT990

None as good as i think the observer article would be. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:48, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficiently notable in his own right; maybe just too soon. Quis separabit? 12:44, 2 August 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.