Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthony Rizzo (filmmaker)


 * 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. Redirect is not appropriate as he does have other work, so it would be confusing for any searchers. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 20:20, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Anthony Rizzo (filmmaker)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I couldn't establish that he meets WP:ENT or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 11:41, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   11:55, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   11:55, 16 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Strong delete IMDb is not a reliable source. Beyond this it adds nothing to notability, since it intends to be a total directory. Wikipedia has never decided to be a broad directory for any profession (the one place it might be a broad directory is as a gazeteer, but that is another issue), and so we need sources that show the subject is noted by someone.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:51, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Why not keep? This lil stub was started back in 05 by the much honored and loved Wikipedian Shauri. She was working to get the article on Duck and Cover (film) up to feature status and made it to avoid a red link in the director's name. Knowing Shauri, she most likely intended to expand it later, but she left in early 06 and never returned. I know all this because I was helping her with Duck and Cover...believe it or not we actually used to help one another back in those days. Now that you know this I have one question- How will deleting it make Wikipedia better? Surely you can find other things on here far more worthy of a burnin. If the criteria above on the IMDB not being a reliable source were applied evenly, then most of the film related articles would be deleted, downsized or down graded. There is a fuckton of info on these that is simply copy pasted from the IMDB. Besides that, Wikipedia declaring any source to be unreliable is a major instance of pot meet kettle and glass house meet rock! R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 13:45, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Your argument seems to be 'it was made by a Wikipedian I liked and who contributed well' (not relevant) and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (also not relevant). DO you think he meets WP:NOTABILITY? Boleyn (talk) 19:24, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Further comment And your argument is based on your own narrow and rigid interpretation of policies, which you cherry pick and cite as if they were some sort of Deletionist holy gospel. Policies should be used as guidelines, not weapons to bludgeon others or to further agendas. Although what your agenda here could be in deleting this lil stub which has sat harmlessly for over a decade, I cannot fathom. Again, I ask you-how will deleting this make Wikipedia better? R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 19:31, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to get drawn into a discussion on why this encyclopaedia doesn't have articles on non-notable people; the consensus of the community is that it shouldn't. Boleyn (talk) 06:03, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Kindly show me where this "consensus" was reached. Was it an open, general discussion or just a few jobsworths in some back water area of the the Pedia deciding this is how it shall ever be? If the latter was the case, then it hardly reflects the views of the whole "community". And which "community" are we talking about? This place has many...most notably the community of writers who create, improve and expand articles, and the community of Deletionists, who simply delete stuff, because tis easier, because they can, because not notable and because "consensus". R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 19:29, 20 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Duck and Cover (film). I'm not sure that the subject has individual notability independent of the film. Some passing mentions here: America's Film Legacy, but nothing in depth. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:31, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * That is a reasonable compromise, thank you for the constructive suggestion. So, redirect and merge, can we agree on that? I can:) R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 19:31, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Personally, I think a merge/redirect would be confusing and unnecessary. If there is the occasional person looking Rizzo up on here (he is linked in a couple of other articles), being redirected to Duck and Cover would be confusing. It would also give undue prominence to his involvement; being a director is important, o course, but for a merge and redirect, I would expect him to be the creator/writer, which he wasn't, and the sole one at that. There is also nothing worth merging: an unsourced sentence on his dates of birth and death (may or may not be accurate) and that he was best known for the film (not worth merging). Boleyn (talk) 06:03, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't see how merging and redirecting a stub into a larger article on the subject's best known (pretty much only known) work would be confusing to the average reader. True, some are easily confused, but I think you are not giving our average reader due credit, nor poor Anthony Rizzo. What did he ever do to you? R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 19:29, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * RDH, your comments are assuming bad faith and comes across just as a huge chip on your shoulder. A section on the director within an article on a film would not make much sense, and readers would wonder why it was there. Please stop attacking other editors and concentrate on answering the issue of notability. Boleyn (talk) 19:52, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * And your comments, madame(?), come off as rigid and inflexible. A reasonable compromise has been proposed, and you flatly reject it for, frankly, stupid reasons. It wouldn't require and entire new section to merge this into Duck and Cover, just incorporate its puny couplet into an existing section at an appropriate spot (or maybe in the intro?) then direct the redirect there. Simple. I'm tempted to be BOLD and do it myself. But right now I'd rather read about dinosaurs and obscure, but fascinating, events of military history. Maybe you could do it? You know, actually edit an article...go on it's easy and can even be fun:) --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 16:28, 22 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete This man is not notable, unfortunately. I agree that a redirect is not appropriate. MartinJones (talk) 18:27, 22 April 2017 (UTC)


 * 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.