Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Napolitano

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 no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:03, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Napolitano

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

Procedural nomination, article was deleted by Prod and contested at WP:REFUND. Original Prod rationale was:Seems to fail WP:DIRECTOR & apparent lack of coverage seems to fail WP:BIO. GB fan 17:06, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the credits listed meets WP:DIRECTOR. The fact that somebody claiming to be this person has edited the article a great deal leads me to believe credits meeting DIRECTOR are not to be found. In addition, none of the coverage I could find meets WP:BIO/WP:GNG. Novaseminary (talk) 19:35, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Weak delete - non-notable minor figure~~, falling under WP:TOOSOON and WP:UPANDCOMING~~. The COI is, of course, not itself an argument for deletion. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:05, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- clarification if we can get better sources than the IMDb, I might change my mind.

Delete - I see him mentioned or quoted like in this article. But I don't see significant coverage about him in reliable sources, nor is there any evidence of significant awards that would establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:28, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, Are you kidding this guy's directorial credits is a what's what of notable television series. The main (and probably) only reason why this article is getting any attention now is because Joenap (talk · contribs) is probably Mr. Napolitano himself. If he is that violates WP:COI, of course. Instead of deleting, cleaning up the article would be a much better option, See: WP:ATD. Quasy Boy 18:32, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which credits meet WP:DIRECTOR? Novaseminary (talk) 18:51, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article 3 in WP:DIRECTOR mentions "collective body of work", that is obviously not a problem for Mr. Napolitano. The directors he has worked with Brian De Palma, Ron Howard, Danny DeVito. How is he not notable? Quasy Boy 19:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - A long list of credits shows that he is a working director. To establish notability, we'd need to see coverage in reliable sources (I found none), or something like a notable award (say an Emmy) for his directing, and there doesn't appear to be any based on his IMDB profile. With respect to his body of work, you left out the part about "that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" for which I would like to see reviews that call out the specific episodes he directed to be notable. -- Whpq (talk) 19:16, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added a lot more references to the article than there ever was before. Hopefully it is satisfactory now. Quasy Boy 04:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good effort, but I don't think so. The blurb in the Encyclopedia of Television Film Directors, Volume 1 comes somewhat close to meeting WP:GNG. But it is not very substantial and only one source. And the description of the source itself notes the book covers many must-be non-notable directors ("cites every director of stand alone long-form television programs: made for TV movies, movie-length pilots, mini-series, and feature-length anthology programs, as well as drama, comedy, and musical specials of more than 60 minutes. A much-needed reference that celebrates these often-neglected artists.") There is still not anything close to indicating the subject meets WP:DIRECTOR. The Yahoo and other listings are nothing more than lists of credits. Novaseminary (talk) 05:11, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Once upon a time on Wikipedia if a television director like Mr. Napolitano had a large number of credits, his notability would not be under question. As a matter of fact I know a few television actors, directors and writers who a have credits up the ying-yang, but do not a Wikipedia entry until they have died. They are covered by a website reporting their death and an obituary is used as a source, an independent third party source, of course. So is that what we are going to have to do for Mr. Napolitano, wait till he dies until he gets independent coverage, than he can have an article? Quasy Boy 14:35, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like your problem is with WP:N, not with how those of us !voting delete are applying it. Yes, once this person, or anyone, receives coverage to meet WP:GNG, and the article wouldn't violate some other policy or guideline, I would almost certainly !vote to keep an article about them. But, until they do, or until they (with RSs, if not RSs sufficient for GNG) meet one of the specialized N variants, there probably shouldn't be a WP article about them. Novaseminary (talk) 16:46, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This seeming RS (4th paragraph) highlights the fact that episodic television directors do not play the same role as film directors. This seems to further highlight this fails WP:DIRECTOR. Novaseminary (talk) 02:36, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting article, but being in the business myself somewhat, I have to strongly disagree with your conclusion. The article appears more as an opinion piece that explains the differences in the types of directors, but does not state that one industry professional is automatically less inportant/notable than another. Stage directors are notable to stage. Film directors are notable to film. Television directors are notable to television. And the paragraph 5 of that article goes on to explain in more detail that television directors DO perform notable works and even gives examples of TV directors who then went on to films. Always nice to consider context. What has bearing is that a television director is under a greater stess to produce in a timely fashion than is a film director and might direct multiple episodes of a notable series in the same time as might a film director. Does having to do more in less time or being sometimes more disposable by a network make them non-notable? And worth noting is that television directors are be recipients of notable awards. See Directors Guild of America and Directors Guild of America Award... which are not limited in membership nor recognition to "only" film directors. While each has different work and different time constraints, they can be notable none-the-less. Just as with actors, we do not judge entertainment professionals by only the least of what they have accomplished, as even the most notable tv or film director began with inauspicious roots. We judge rather by the length and depth of a career. And by the by... Napolitano HAS directed films, not just episodic television.Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:01, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep The GNG is set to assist in determining notability through significant coverage when availble. SNGs such as WP:DIRECTOR are set to assist in determining notability when SIGCOV is not present, and with WP:DIRECTOR, a body of his notable projcts must be verifiable in reliable sources, with no requirement that the souces being used to verify must also be SIGCOV. The GNG and the SNGs are both parts of WP:N, intended to work together and not at odds. Failing the GNG does not mean one cannot pass an SNG, and conversely, failing an SNG does not mean one cannot pass the GNG. As Napolitano's multiple works CAN be verified and many of his works HAVE been themselves the recipients of SIGCOV, we have a meeting of the SNG. All the article requires is a couple sections on his more notabe projects and the recognition those projects received. That's an issue addressable through regular editing and does not require deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:39, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, you're in the business... Now I know what QuasyBoy canvassed you here. So you admit her fails GNG. Clearly some of the shows he has directed episodes of have received coverage. But how does that meet DIRECTOR? Which prong? Are the shows "his" body of work? Would the lighting person on these shows meet DIRECTOR? I might buy it for producers who seem to stay with the show over the course of a sesion. But it is not clear television directors should fall under DIRECTOR at all. And I still don't think he meets it on its own terms. Further, he has not directed a feature motion picture, just two made for TV movies. He has been one asssistant director on several theater-released films. Novaseminary (talk) 15:51, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "in the business" as an actor in both film and television, a fact that has never been concealed. So what? Being a coordinator of Project Film, I ALWAYS check the film and actor delsorts, so he did not suggest I go anywhere or do anything I do not normally check as a matter of course. I was asked neutrally for my input and no request was made that I opine one way or the other... and had his argument been flawed I would have have been quite willing to opine a delete. Meeting the GNG is not a requiremenmt if meeting WP:CREATIVE, and a personal opinion that directors of film be treated as more notable than directors of other types of notable productions, seems an attempt to re-write WP:CREATIVE. AFD is the wrong forum to attempt to rewrite guideline, as at AFD, we apply the guidelines as currently existing and not as we "wish" them to be. Worth stressing is that the opinion piece you linked above does well in its illustrating that television directors have a great deal of notable creative control of their projects, and even with you wishing to concentrate on the least of his works (the showing of which is required in a properly comprehensive BLP), he DID direct notable FILM and TELEVISION production, and their being confined to the small screen does not make such productions non-notable. Incluson in Wikipedia is based upon verifability, and we apply guideline and policy to determine if a topic is verifiable and just notable enough for inclusion without limiting this encyclopedia to "only" the "most" notable. So, and with respects, it is your argument which is flawed. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:11, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I realize he need not meet GNG. We all agree he does not. And I am not trying to change WP:CREATIVE. I don't think he meets that, either. You have never said, but seem to be arguing he meets #3. I don't think so. I don't think he "has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work." His two TV movies don't come close. And his directing episodes of many notable TV shows doesn't either. He has not "created, or played a major role in co-creating" any of them, so far as we can tell. The shows' creators did that, maybe the producers, but probably not the directors. You would never refer to him as a creator or co-creator of Quantum Leap or the like, would you? As for coverage of his body of work as such, no sources do anything more than list the shows he has worked on. If there were sources that talked about his role in creating several shows, I'd buy it. But there are not. Novaseminary (talk) 20:31, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're advocating that a television director cannot be notable, and that is a fallacy, as even the article you posted in an attempt to lessen consideration of their work actually supports the proposition that they do indeed many times have creative and artistic input into their productions. WP:CREATIVE does not state the such individuals must write and produce... else by that logic many film directors would be found non-notable. That's not how it works. By a television director having that creative input, they become part of a notable production's creation or co-creation. Not all do, no. But we are not discussing those that do not. His two TV movies have been the recipient of commentary and review, and in an industry (and this includes filmmaking) where directors are sometimes switched out as often a a pair of socks (as relected by his and many director's one-ofs), I find his directing 12 episodes of Quantum Leap, 2 episodes of The X-Files, 2 episodes of Picket Fences, 3 episodes of The Pretenders, 2 episodes of L.A. Doctors, 2 episodes of Dawson's Creek, 4 episodes of Boston Public, and 14 episodes of Strong Medicine to be indicative of his sometimes having more than a passing interest in the creation and artistic integrity of those notable series, even if not the writer or producer of those series. And when doing a search that removes the false positives created by a mobster with the same name, it is not difficult al all to see that this man has made it into the enduring record.[1][2][3][4][5] Most notable ever? Nope. Notable enough to be worthy of note for Wikipedia? Yes. And I request assistance in tracking down: (TV Zone (USA/UK) July 1996, Iss. 80, pg. 19-21, by: Steven Eramo, "Leaping Into The Unknown") where he is interviewed about his involvement with Quantum Leap, as the microfiche for this article is missing from my public library. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:15, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am absolutely not "advocating that a television director cannot be notable." I am giving my opinion that this television director does not meet WP:DIRECTOR. You admit that not all television directors have creative input. Because there are zero sources discussing the role he played as director in any of his credits, we have no way of knowing whether this director has had such input. Your finding that he has "more than a passing interest in the creation and artistic integrity of those notable series" might be true (but not supported by an RSs), but that still doesn't mean anyone in the know would consider him a creator or co-creator of any of these shows. Novaseminary (talk) 22:24, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, from your first offering above of a external link, you seemed to be advocating just that, by what I believe to be an incorrect insistance that in the absence of SIGCOV a television director does not meet WP:CREATIVE through their being part of the creation of a notable television production. WP:CREATIVE does not say he must be the writer or producer, only that his involvement is significant... and I have already noted above those series where he had directed multiple episodes where his involvement can be considered significant enough through verifiability... not coverage. We disagree, let's not WP:BLUD this to death. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:56, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Enough evidence for masterpiece. If someone will be interested in person - let them get information. (talk) 19:42, 5 November 2011 (UTC))[reply]

??? Got this gem in right before getting blocked. Novaseminary (talk) 20:31, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ADHOM. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:29, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This user !voted here as part of a spate of disruptive edits for which the user was blocked a few minutes later. My point is that this !vote should be given zero weight, mostly because of the non sequitur element of the "argument". But the inapplicability of the argument is explained as part of the bad behavior of the editor. But if you think the argument is persuasive... Novaseminary (talk) 21:35, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ADHOM is still the consideration... as you now attempt to use the angst of a newcomer as an argument to delete. The closer will note whatever the closer wishes to note, WP:BLUD aside. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:17, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I never said or implyed this poor !vote was reason to delete. Merely that it should receive zero weight in favor of keeping (or at all), for two reasons: 1) it is nonsensical, and 2) it was made in violation of WP:POINTY (which, I mention only to explain why it is non-sensical, and to highlight there is probably not a good argument just poorly stated). I bet you, Schmidt, agree that this !vote should receive zero weight, too. Or do you, Schmidt, think there is "Enough evidence for masterpiece." Novaseminary (talk) 22:30, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My point per WP:ATTP, is that your irrelevently pointing out how a newcomer's angst resulted in his receiving a temp block does not address the issue being discussed. My opinion is that there is enough verifiability for this man's career to show his being just notable enough per policy and guideline to merit inclusion. As AFD is not a vote, a closer will know what arguments to count or discount and why... without the unneccessary "??? Got this gem in right before getting blocked" comment. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:02, 5 November 2011 (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.