Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jason Thomas Scott


 * 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. L Faraone  04:58, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Jason Thomas Scott

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable producer/director lacking sufficient secondary support. Article references are primary in nature, written by the article subject about himself, or are only single line mentions of the article subject. red dog six (talk) 15:12, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 9 June 2013 (UTC)



Jason Thomas Scott matches the criteria as a notable television producer under Wikipedia's policy regarding notability: "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field." Notability

Additional sources have been added

Jason Thomas Scott is a widely recognized contribution to modern television production. Several independent and approved sources, including the Denver Post, Yahoo!, and IMDB (for filmography purposes) have been added to the page to prove notability and verification. Additionally, Scott's active membership and involvement with the Producers Guild of America [] has been added to the article with a source directly to the PGA's official magazine mentioning his membership. (talk) --Jss1857 (talk) 20:13, 10 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - I do not see significant coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 15:41, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone  01:16, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar   &middot;   &middot;  04:41, 24 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete'; no significant coverage from multiple non-primary reliable source have been found regarding the subject of this AfD, therefore the subject does not appear to have received sufficient coverage in those reliable sources to be considered notable per WP:GNG. Furthermore, the subject does not appear to meet any of the notability requirements set forth in WP:CREATIVE. Therefore, failing these notability definitions, I am supporting deletion of this article. I am not opposed to recreation of the article if sufficient significant coverage is later found.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:50, 25 June 2013 (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.