Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jason Michael Paul


 * 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. There seems to be enough to show notability, though considerable editing is needed. I urge PPdd to continue doing this, and keep their eye on it. ,.  DGG ( talk ) 21:08, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Jason Michael Paul

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Article is self-serving/advertising in nature. The only references I can find pertain to the production company; however, these are just a credit that the company produced a show. Article fails WP:BIO. Article created by an editor associated with the production organization and with a prior working relationship with the "subject" of the article. red dog six (talk) 05:21, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

<> It is true that I work for JMP productions, yet if you read the Bio and did any research you would find that JMP has contributed significantly to the world of Video Game Music concerts. Please consider leaving this article as a part of Wikipedia as I feel it is important that he is recognized for his contributions to bringing attention to the fantastic world of Video Game Music composition and performance. Thank-you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacobattersby (talk • contribs)
 * Delete per nom. Vanity piece with extra mustard on the side, please. --Legis (talk - contribs) 07:59, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete - Clearly self-serving and COI author. As a side note, why is this at AfD with a current PROD?   Salvidrim!   07:19, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment – Topic notability is ultimately based upon the availability of reliable sources, not who wrote an article. Northamerica1000 (talk) 04:45, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong KEEP - Clear notability, as pioneer producer of new art form being performed in major venues, attracting significant media attention,Here are a pile of news stories. and attracting major players in two industries his work combines. I was unaware of this new art form until this article. There is COI but that is irrelevant to notability. COI also does not block a new editor from editing. I assume most new editors come in with COI on their first article, and many experts contributing to an article have COI, which is the basis of their expertise. The article needs to be toned down and Wikified, but otherwise is an interesting article about a notable person producting a new art form that without the article, I would not have known about. PPdd (talk) 00:14, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - It appears the "ton of articles" are about the event and only mention the individual in passing. As the experienced editor knows WP:NOTABILITY is not inherited, so the event might be WP:NOTABILITY, but the individual probably is not.  BTW - If PPdd wishes to edit the article to include articles that I have not seen feel free. I am sure we would all welcome a keep outcome.   red dog six  (talk) 06:04, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The producer of a significant new art form is not inheriting notability from the art form he or she produced. This is not the meaning of "inheritied". In the same way that a scientist and their significant discovery are each notable, a producer or a significant thing and the thing are each notable. PPdd (talk) 00:10, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


 * This is a new editor making his first edit in utter good faith, and the article is interesting and informative. It needs to be Wikified, and remove a little WP:Peacock, but is a good article, especially for a first one by a new editor.
 * I have not mentored an editor before, but I volunteered to do so with this editor. If he can't handle bringing this article up to snuff, I will come back and do it when I have time. But deletion for lack of notability as the basis is not rational. And as of the last time I checked, COI does not rule out writing an article. In fact, most truly expert editors have COI in the articles they write. PPdd (talk) 06:43, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


 * comment did the prod and AfD at the same time mean that you really wanted to delete it? 198.24.31.118 (talk) 18:06, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TigerShark (talk) 22:49, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment – I added another reliable source reference to this article:
 * — Northamerica1000 (talk) 04:42, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * — Northamerica1000 (talk) 04:42, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep He passes 1 and possible 3 of WP:ENTERTAINER. "Has had significant roles in multiple notable stage performances, or other productions." Search for his name and that of one of his plays, I found ample coverage of his work.  Gamezone's news section has an article about one of his productions.  The Sydney Morning Herald covers his other play.  More out there, of course, but that's enough to prove notability.   D r e a m Focus  12:56, 21 December 2011 (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.