Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aaron Martin (TV producer)

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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:09, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Martin (TV producer)

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

Struggling to find independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO. Run-of-the-mill producer. Edwardx (talk) 21:03, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable TV businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:10, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 02:59, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 02:59, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 02:59, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He created Slasher (TV series), I think that is enough. Szzuk (talk) 18:38, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's the sourcing that can be provided to support the notability claim, not the claim itself, that determines whether the article is keepable or not — no article about a person can ever make any notability claim that's so "inherently" notable that it exempts him from having to have reliable source coverage about him to support it. So if he can be shown to have received reliable source coverage about him for creating Slasher, then he can get an article — but creating a TV series is no automatic inclusion freebie in the absence of valid sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 16:52, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, without prejudice against recreation if and when somebody can do better than this. He does have credible notability claims, but what's lacking here is the sourcing necessary to get him over WP:GNG for them — and on a ProQuest search, I'm not finding anything stronger at this time. I can find a few glancing mentions of his existence in coverage of Slasher, but nothing that's about him for the purposes of demonstrating his standalone notability — and even the Gemini/CSA nominations, which are his strongest basis for inclusion, still require some sources about him, not just user-generated verification on his own IMDb profile, before they actually clinch an article. Merely stating a notability claim does not exempt the person from having to have the reliable sourcing needed to carry an article — he'd absolutely be eligible to have an article that was sourced properly, but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have any reliable source coverage about him anywhere. Because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anybody can edit, nothing stops "anybody" from adding information to our articles that's damaging to the subject's reputation, or even outright false — so we require reliable sourcing, not just the making of an unsourced or poorly sourced notability claim, before we can actually keep an article, because that's the only mechanism we have for keeping our articles accurate and non-defamatory. Bearcat (talk) 17:01, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of WP:RS. There's an IMdB entry and two blogs, making WP:BLP a problem here. Bearian (talk) 17:21, 5 April 2018 (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.