Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Steindorff

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 keep. Consensus was that the found sources were sufficient to warrant an article, passing WP:FILMMAKER. (non-admin closure) Rollidan (talk) 22:12, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Steindorff

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails WP:GNG due to lack of coverage in secondary sources. The article cites only one source and reads like a press release. While films and shows he's produced are notable, Steindorff himself does not appear to be. If a movie or show is notable it doesn't mean that everybody who worked on it is automatically notable by association. JMB1980 (talk) 19:28, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Authors, Businesspeople, Television, and Minnesota. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:26, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Please see WP:FILMMAKER. Article needs cleaned up and/or tagged but the person meets the criteria of FILMMAKER. --CNMall41 (talk) 15:43, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that WP:FILMMAKER is considered "additional criteria" and that he would still have to meet the standard for WP:BASIC to be considered notable, which he doesn't. Considering the apparent lack of coverage in secondary sources, I don't think its possible to solve the main issues with this article, even if some of the smaller problems (such as the article's promotional tone) can be solved. JMB1980 (talk) 21:23, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It wouldn't make sense to have additional criteria that doesn't count for anything if you don't meet GNG, otherwise why have it???.Jupiteralien (talk) 02:49, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose it's because meeting the basic notability criteria alone may not be sufficient to determine whether or not somebody is notable.
It's clearly listed under "additional criteria" on the notability page, with the word "additional" meaning it's supplementary to something else; in context, it's apparent that it's supplemental to the general notability guidelines. JMB1980 (talk) 07:23, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:SNG,Wikipedia articles are generally written based on in-depth, independent, reliable sourcing with some subject-specific exceptions relating to independence. The subject-specific notability guidelines generally include verifiable criteria about a topic which show that appropriate sourcing likely exists for that topic. Therefore, topics which pass an SNG are presumed to merit an article, though articles which pass an SNG or the GNG may still be deleted or merged into another article, especially if adequate sourcing or significant coverage cannot be found, or if the topic is not suitable for an encyclopedia. And from the WP:BIO SNG, beneath the WP:BASIC section, at the top of the Additional criteria section:People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. These are alternative guidelines for supporting notability, sorted into broad categories that can help guide research and discussion. Beccaynr (talk) 00:52, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on number of shows he has Executive Produced, such as Las Vegas, which was very popular on NBC. He meets WP:FILMMAKER. Jupiteralien (talk) 02:52, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comments I have reduced the content that did not have sources and added a few citations. Jupiteralien (talk) 03:16, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Beccaynr (talk) 00:03, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Similar to other subjects with Asperger's syndrome recently brought to AfD by this nominator, it appears that WP:BASIC/WP:GNG notability is supported by an online search, e.g. ‘Butch Cassidy’ TV Series in the Works (Kirkus, 2021) Producer Gets Personal About Being on the Spectrum in New Doc (Hollywood Reporter, 2020), LA Mag’s Psychedelics Cover Story Is Being Developed As TV Series (Los Angeles Magazine, 2021), Scott Steindorff acquires rights to 'Station Eleven,' EW's 2014 Best Fiction Book of the Year (EW, 2015), Funny or Die Shoots for National Lampoon Status With New Movie Slate (Exclusive) (Hollywood Reporter, 2013), Natalie Portman’s indie western faces series of troubles (Los Angeles Times, 2013), Steindorff’s Scott Pictures plans expansion (Variety, 2012), Scott Steindorff, Exclusive Media strike sales pact (ScreenDaily, 2012), Great Scott: Scott Steindorff’s Excellent Adventure in Hollywood (Jewish Journal, 2006), Ugly Americans, Young, Attractive and Tormented (New York Times, 2006). Beccaynr (talk) 00:28, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: sources above clearly indicate notability. With articles were better sourced so as to avoid these noms. Be nice if people,would improve articles rather than waste bandwidth trying to get them deleted. Montanabw^(talk) 05:27, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Beccaynr above. Inspect61 (talk) 05:50, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Beccaynr above and passes WP:FILMMAKER.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:25, 22 March 2022 (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.