Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Douglas Z. Doty


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Mediran  talk to me! 06:18, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Douglas Z. Doty

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No reliable sources by Kevin12cd  Talk to me  This was posted at  23:23, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep If an article doesn't have a "reliable source" does that mean it's not notable? I'm unclear here as to why this is criteria for deletion. And anyway, there is a reliable source in the article - from the AMPAS website clearly stating he was nominated for an Academy Award. That sounds notable to me. He also has credits on more than 60 other films too.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 07:57, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'm going to chip in a little here. I know that normally award nominations aren't considered to contribute notability since they didn't win, but somewhere along the lines I seem to remember hearing that the extremely notable awards such as Academy Awards contributed notability even if they didn't win. I'll check around and see what I can find on that, but if he was nominated then there should be at least something out there.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The stuff I'm finding is pretty far archived, but what I am seeing so far shows that he was pretty notable in his time. It's just unfortunate that much of it is hidden behind paywalls and such.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:58, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It looks like he also did one of the first sound shorts as well, which should count towards notability or nominate him under part 3 of WP:ENTERTAINER. He was also rather prolific, so that's to be noted as well.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:02, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your hard work with this! Here's a similar AfD from a while back that resulted in a keep. Thanks again.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 12:29, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 8 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment The silent Romance of the Underworld is "is extant at the Museum of Modern Art". According to WP:ARTIST #5: "The person's work (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums." If we can find any other films held in museums it might meet ARTIST. This might not be so difficult since silent films are now often treated like works of art and he was a prolific silent film writer. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 09:16, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran  talk to me! 09:45, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep and continue the hunt for sourcing. MoMA is enough for notability, and this is an underrepresented area in Wikipedia articles. Killer Chihuahua 10:12, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Per TokyoGirl79, as usual excellent AFD rescues. It seems this gentleman would definitely meet WP:GNG at least. § FreeRangeFrog croak 20:35, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy Snow Keep. Sorry, but the nominator did not follow procedures set by deletion policy, seen in his failure to provide a valid rationale for deletion.  His terse nomination comment "no reliable sources" implied that it should be deleted because the article did not contain reliable sources... an issue easily addressable through regular editing... and one that does not require deletion. His rationale is specially invalid in the light of other's WP:BEFORE showing that sources DO exist for this notable screenwriter whose career preceded the internet by over 50 years. We do not delete notable persons who are no longer alive to catch headlines. Per the AFD forcing work by others, this discussion is now moot.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 22:17, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment The nominator's No reliable sources comment can mean anything, up to and including that he couldn't find any. Remember not everyone is good at that. The discussion is not moot, on the contrary. It helps find new information to source the article, and it dispels any doubts about the notability of this person and prevent it from being brought to AFD again. Everyone wins. § FreeRangeFrog croak 22:41, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Appreciate your observations, but if the diligence recommended by Deletion Policy were to have been followed, it would have showed the nominator (as it had to others), numerous sources with which the article could be improved. The policy-based option would have been to tag it for needing improvement, which could have then listed it as addressable at places such as WikiProject Unreferenced articles.  For such addressable issues, deletion policy tells us "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion".  My "snow" is based upon the preceding !keeps and the unlikeliness that this will now gain any !deletes. My "speedy" is simply based upon what I perceive as the faulty rationale used in the nomination itself, and not by any speculation over how the nom made his decision to nominate.  And although AFD is not intended to force cleanup, it has done so... thus making continuing this AFD of a much-improved and nicely-sourced article moot. I would suggest he might even consider a withdrawal. IMHO. And lest I forget... major kudos to Tokyogirl79.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 03:35, 11 December 2012 (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.