Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doug Bresler


 * 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:43, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Doug Bresler

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article lists only 2 sources total, both of which are either IMDB or self-published, which is against WP:CITEIMDB and WP:SELFPUB as established Wikipedia essays or policies. Google Books, Google News, Google Newspaper Archive, and Google Scholar make passing mentions, if he's listed at all. A further search on HighBeam for "Doug Bresler" returns 0 results. These would strongly indicate the subject doesn't pass WP:GNG, nor WP:ANYBIO and WP:CREATIVE. GauchoDude (talk) 20:34, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I will say that this article would never have come to administrative attention if the whole battle over "Coo" had not started. Should an article be ranked any lower simply because it has recently had more activity? 107.77.232.190 (talk) 23:19, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: Recent (or lack of) activity has no bearing on article quality or notability criteria, the second being addressed above. GauchoDude (talk) 13:28, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  Vipinhari  &#124;&#124;  talk  16:58, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  Vipinhari  &#124;&#124;  talk  16:58, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as searches noticeably found nothing better and none of this solidly satisfies any applicable notability. SwisterTwister   talk  02:21, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Hey all, check the edits by the last editor. I see he was banned for sockpuppetry but the article might be more credible now. 166.173.251.200 (talk) 22:56, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: For me personally, quantity does not equal quality. While Mr. Bresler was mentioned in all of the non-interview articles, they all seemed to be passing mentions while the bulk of the article was focused on the work being created.  Perhaps the best solution is to redirect Doug Bresler to the Doogtoons article if that is where the notability is. GauchoDude (talk) 13:28, 7 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep as he seems to be a prolific contributor to the field of cartoons, with his own studios and has won a number of awards. The improved sources discuss him enough for WP:BASIC to be passed.Atlantic306 (talk) 02:03, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: The awards listed on his page, which are currently unsourced and subject to removal via WP:BOLD and WP:BLPSOURCES, are also non-notable. As an extreme example, if a person were to win their high school prom's King or Queen, that's a non-notable award and just because they won has no bearing on if they should have an article or not.  Again, for me, he fails WP:BASIC as very little to none of the articles listed are actually directly about him, moreso about his work.  In light of this, in my opinion Doug Bresler shouldn't have a stand-alone article and it should be either deleted or merged into his work's article at Doogtoons. GauchoDude (talk) 13:23, 10 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - doesn't pass WP:GNG, WP:BASIC or WP:NACTOR. Not enough in-depth coverage for the first, not enough quality for the second, and clearly doesn't meet the parameters of the third.  Onel 5969  TT me 14:09, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - Per WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO and WP:NACTOR. Remember that information in the article itself is not relevant in this discussion (minus sources, etc). Most of the content in the article is completely unreferenced and not even supported or discussed by the sources that are listed. There doesn't appear to be any in-depth coverage from secondary reliable sources that are independent of the subject, which also means that the significant coverage requirement is also out. So GNG is not met. ANYBIO is also not met, as the person has not received a "well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times". The article states that he has, but that information is completely unreferenced and I could find no reliable sources to assert that this information is true. And I also feel that NACTOR is also not met, as I see no sources that show that this person has played "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions". In the end, I feel that this person is a personality and actor in non-notable media and with an overly inflated article with no references to support most of the content.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   07:25, 11 March 2016 (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.