Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff M. Giordano (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Jayjg (talk) 06:29, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Jeff M. Giordano
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Article is about a non-notable young filmmaker who is still getting started in his career. I tried and failed to find sources to establish notability, including searches in ProQuest, EBSCOhost, InfoTrac, and JSTOR; both with and without the middle initial. Does not meet any of the criteria in WP:ARTIST or the general notability guideline. Previous nomination resulted in no consensus. --Darkwind (talk) 18:46, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete not notable. (GregJackP (talk) 02:12, 27 March 2010 (UTC))
 * Delete Non-notable filmmaker. Per WP:BIO. Warrah (talk) 11:26, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 *  Keep  He is young and at the beginning of his career, true. But he is discussed at some length in an article in the New York Times, and two other newspapers mention his receiving the Special Jury Award at the Provincetown Film Festival. He appparently stumbled into the New York Times article, but there he is, in print. Thousands may very well read the article there, go to Wikipedia, and look him up. Evalpor (talk) 16:02, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not able to find any significant mention of him in the actual printed NYT; all I could find was one brief mention that one of his films was appearing in the "Super 8-Millimeter Film and Digital Video Festival" in 2006: "Michelle Falkenstein. (2006, January 29). Jersey Footlights :[New Jersey Weekly Desk]. New York Times   (Late Edition (east Coast)),  p. 8.  Retrieved March 27, 2010, from ProQuest Newsstand. (Document ID: 977695771)." That article hardly qualifies as "significant coverage".  There was another mention of him in the NYT, but online, in a blog: Sometimes Networking Is Just Saying Hello.  If this is what you're referring to, this also does not constitute significant coverage - the article is not about him, it's about networking, and it's in a blog anyway.  A blog published by the NYT, but still a blog and not necessarily subject to editorial oversight, so it may not qualify under WP:V.  If you found something else that I didn't, could you add it to the article, or its talk page, so we can verify it?  However, even with that, he still doesn't meet any of the criteria at WP:ARTIST, and the Special Jury Award from Provincetown doesn't qualify as a "notable award" for WP:ANYBIO (I'm unable to find anything to verify the significance or notability of the award, so having received it doesn't contribue to the notability of this filmmaker.) --Darkwind (talk) 17:50, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, it was a NYT blog, I stand corrected. But I respectfully maintain my vote to Keep. One sees so many worthless articles pass through here, and every once in a while I like to cast my lot with the dark horse, when that individual seems worth defending. Evalpor (talk) 18:32, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - if the source is not reliable (i.e., a blog, and not even on the subject), how does it support notability and inclusion? Well-written, worthwhile or not has no bearing on this - if it is not notable, not of encyclopedic stature, then it should be deleted. (GregJackP (talk) 20:57, 27 March 2010 (UTC))


 * Delete per nom and other comments supporting deletion. I concede GregJAckP's point, and therefore change my vote from "keep" to "delete." There's a first time for everything, I guess. Evalpor (talk) 23:49, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep that NYT reference above is not actually a blog in the sense of being an individual creation not under editorial responsibility. The part that refers to him is an edited staff posting by Marci Alboher, one of their Business staff. It is followed in blog fashion by miscellaneous people, in what amounts to the online equivalent of letters to the editor. Most newspapers now publish a good deal of their contents this way, and we might as well get used to it. It is covered in WP:RS.  I consider that this material appearsto be proof of notability. A nyt article on column on anyone makes for notability    DGG ( talk ) 23:56, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm with you on this, and my opinion is that there are many people who will read that NYT blog and want to find out more about this subject. BUT, I don't make the rules or set the standards here. I am a part of a team and sometimes I feel I need to put the sword away for another day. The subject seems like a serious filmmaker to me, and he is likely to make another Wikipedia appearance sometime in the future, when notability can be more clearly established. Hopefully, we can keep him then. Mkativerata makes a splendid argument below, BTW. Evalpor (talk) 02:03, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. I fully agree with DGG that the blog is a reliable source: a blog produced by a reliable newspaper should be presumed to be reliable. However, I think the source, in combination with the others, fails the test of "significant coverage" in respect of the subject.  Significant coverage is an important threshhold in our notability guidelines because without significant coverage of the subject, as opposed to incidential mentions, we have an unreliable article. A subject, particularly a person, cannot be covered properly in an encyclopaedia (even in a stub) without significant coverage on which to source.  On balance, I don't think the threshold is crossed here.--Mkativerata (talk) 01:30, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Noting first of all that I made a number of edits to the article in 2007. I agree with Mkativerata here. The sources that we have do not amount to significant coverage of the subject and so the subject does not meet the primary inclusion criteria.  --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:28, 1 April 2010 (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.