Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Klugman


 * 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.  Sandstein  12:01, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Brian Klugman

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The only two refs given here do not look like they add up to notability. Google search results in IMDb, Wikipedia and mirror sites, along with listings in directories and places like Spokeo. In-depth discussion in reliable independent secondary sources seems to be lacking. No awards, only appearances as one-off characters in a few televisions shows. A loose noose (talk) 04:27, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:19, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:19, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:19, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:20, 30 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep - While his roles as an actor may be small and not meet the muster of WP:NACTOR's "significant roles in multiple [...] television shows", they are numerous, and along with the fact that he easily satisfies WP:DIRECTOR's "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work [...] (for example, a film, [...])" for The Words (film), which was a major motion picture given its cast, budget, and distribution and received mainstream, albeit poor, reviews, makes the case that he is certainly notable enough as a filmmaker. JesseRafe (talk) 14:45, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * That is an incomplete quote from paragraph 3 of WP:DIRECTOR. The whole quote also stipulates that "In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work, for example, a book, film, or television series.." (emphasis mine).  I have not yet seen any evidence that "The Words" has itself received that kind of heightened attention, and am not surprised considering the kinds of reviews it got. What would really change my mind, however, would be discussion in multiple reliable independent published sources.  If these can be shown to exist, i will gladly withdraw my nomination. A loose noose (talk) 14:54, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * That's a misunderstanding of how it was written, as the bullets apply to a wide range of creative outputs and one has to parse the disjunctions accordingly, it is not written to require each element be satisfied. If you read the bold: "In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." it is clear that is satisfies as stated above. They don't have to be good reviews, but it was widely reviewed by mainstream critics nonetheless. JesseRafe (talk) 15:10, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:10, 7 December 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:53, 14 December 2018 (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.