Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jethro Rothe-Kushel (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. Ironholds (talk) 04:16, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Jethro Rothe-Kushel
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:Promo, Notability, and WP:RS. Sources are self published or college club web pages. Article is by editors whose only contribution is this article. It has been deleted before and has been reposted in almost exactly the same form. Lexlex (白痴美國) (talk) 01:48, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  czar   &middot;   &middot;  02:01, 8 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Weak delete. Looks like a solid worker, but coverage of individual in media is negligible.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 17:21, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment "Negligible" is a subjective term. In this case are the 32 references not yet sufficient?  How many more references would be required?


 * Delete the NYTimes refs sound impressive, but they are just the reprint of the basic info on the movie from allmovieguide. IMdB does not list him as a producer on the films in the filmography, "Line producer" is apparently a very junior title. He lists himself as in 30 under 30, which is a promotional site at and I think worth absolutely nothing towards notability.  DGG ( talk ) 23:57, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment The New York Times reference here is based on official data compiled by Baseline (database), a "global authority in verified entertainment data" at, acquired by the New York Times in 2006 according to this article . The individual is also listed as Producer on several movie's official websites like this one . Well Go Entertainment owns the rights to this movie starring Jeffrey Dean Morgan & Mickey Rourke according to a Los Angeles Times article at and according to The Hollywood Reporter article at . LA Times, New York Times, Variety, and Hollywood Reporter meet the WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV guidelines.  Said sources are "reliable" and "independent" of the subject according to Notability guidelines. WiniBot356 (talk) 05:34, 13 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete promotional puffery. Gamaliel (talk) 17:01, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment There is no referenced guideline for this perspective. WiniBot356 (talk) 05:34, 13 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep I have attempted to help the original creator fix many of the links and references since its creation, and would hate to see this work go to waste.  Please let me know how to improve it rather than simply delete.  This is the second time user lexlex has proposed the article for deletion and appears not to be a disinterested third party.  The reasons for deletion -- WP:Promo is currently an undefined reason for deletion.  Article meets "Significant coverage" guidelines by having 32 third party references and 17 external sources that are "Reliable" and "Independent of the Subject" as defined by Wikipedia including the California Film Commission, Variety, New York Times, and Producers Guild of America,  all of which are recognized as third party sources by Wikipedia.  The 30 Summit  seems to be a third party source with no relation to this articles subject, but can delete this reference, if there is evidence otherwise. Line Producer is a legitimate function and nowhere in Wikipedia's description does it define this as a junior function.  Wikipedia defines it as "a type of film producer who functions as the key manager during the daily operations of a feature film, television film or the episode of a TV program." Many Line Producers are currently listed on Wikipedia including Michael Williams, Christopher Sabat, Colleen Clinkenbeard, Zach Bolton, Danièle Gégauff.  Also, there are many third party references to Producer credits for this individual including the New York Times . Happy to help improve the article in any specific ways required, but please keep the article.FidelityTree (talk) 05:52, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment I have no connection at all to the subject of the article and nominated it for deletion merely on form. I re-nominated it because it was just re-posted after it was deleted the first time. Sometimes a subject simply isn't notable enough for Wikipedia - yet. Things can always change, the subject can certainly become notable, but at this point I just don't see it. A line producer is no different than a construction site supervisor, a tough job but really not notable in any sense. I'm sorry you disagree, but give it time. If this guy keeps working and becomes notable or famous he will certainly appear here - but that has to happen first. Wikipedia attempts to reflect reality, not create it. Lexlex (白痴美國) (talk) 17:00, 12 May 2013 (UTC)


 *  Delete - coverage lacking to establish notability. red dog six  (talk) 14:45, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment The New York Times reference here is based on official data compiled by Baseline (database), a "global authority in verified entertainment data" at, acquired by the New York Times in 2006 according to this article . The individual is also listed as Producer on several movie's official websites like this one . Well Go Entertainment owns the rights to this movie starring Jeffrey Dean Morgan & Mickey Rourke according to a Los Angeles Times article at and according to The Hollywood Reporter article at . LA Times, New York Times, Variety, and Hollywood Reporter meet the WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV guidelines.  Said sources are "reliable" and "independent" of the subject according to Notability guidelines. WiniBot356 (talk) 05:34, 13 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Updated. WP:DEL-CONTENT Deleted links, fixed some broken links, and added new references since the creation of this thread.  Thank you for the suggestions.  Originally, I improved this article from the original deletion with the help of User:SarahStierch.  I did not create the first article, although I did improve on it and created this new article.  It appears User:Lexlex was the same user who nominated the first article for deletion.  The New York Times reference here is based on official data compiled by Baseline (database), a "global authority in verified entertainment data", acquired by the New York Times in 2006. The individual is also listed as Producer on several movie's official websites.   Well Go Entertainment owns the rights to this movie starring Jeffrey Dean Morgan & Mickey Rourke according to The Hollywood Reporter. LA Times, New York Times, Variety, and Hollywood Reporter meet the WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV guidelines.  Said sources are "reliable" and "independent" of the subject according to Notability guidelines.    WiniBot356 (talk) 05:11, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete and here is why:
 * First, the nominator cited that it's WiniBot365's only article. That is not a reason enough to nominate it for deletion, so I trust everyone here to ignore that sentiment. Plenty of new editors contribute single great articles (look at the education program, for example) so that isn't a case for nomination.
 * I encourage everyone to read the guidelines for Creative professionals regarding notability.
 * I did remove some weasel words and non-neutral language, as well as external links that were placed in the article, and excessive external links in the external links section. Please see WP:EXTERNAL to learn about how to use external links wisely.
 * Some notes on the sources:
 * First source appears to be a circular reference, thus failing the reference guidelines.
 * The OV guide source fails WP:RELIABLE because it's basically publishing content created by the subject. Which makes it non reliable.
 * The Studio System link doesn't provide any information about the subject, so, at first glance it's not reliable or useful at all. I can only assume good faith on source 5.
 * The sources from Dartmouth, in theory, fail as reliable sources since they are directly associated with the subject, since he attends (or attended) Dartmouth. They can't be used to establish notability in this situation, because it's going to be a non-neutral source since he's a student there and they are naturally going to love him. Including sources
 * Dead link, thus not able to establish anything:
 * "Mere mentions" aren't enough to merit notability. A mere mention is basically someone mentioning one's name briefly, like here. And.
 * Non reliable sources include those produced by the subject, like these:
 * The New York Times mentions aren't enough to establish notability, as it's just a collection of information about thousands of people. Just because one is listed in that database doesn't establish notability. Examples: Same with this Yahoo! one
 * That FanPix website appears to be as equally unreliable as IMDB can be. Please review information about using sources like this here.
 * This source doesn't even mention the subject thus failing to establish any notability. Same with this and this. Oh and another  and this one also

Hope this helps some in regards to your future articles. It looks like the subject isn't notable enough yet. SarahStierch (talk) 15:47, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Reasons are enumerated below along with some insightful guidelines and essays to consider:
 * The primary reason for deletion that has been suggested is a lack of notability. The guidelines on notability are worth considering here. 32 sources are referenced here, and the majority are classified as reliable, secondary, and independent sources. Refer to the guidelines here, WP:GNG.
 * "Significant Coverage" of the 32 references here, most address the subject significantly.
 * "Reliable" Most sources are third party sources. A few references have been deleted or may need to be deleted, but not enough to warrant deletion of the entire article.
 * The majority of the sources referenced are secondary sources.
 * The majority of the sources cited are independent of the subject.
 * This article seems to be in need of development. During this thread alone, it has been significantly improved.  The essay [WP:CHANCE] is worth reading.
 * Just because an article can be improved is not reason to demolish. WP:DEMOLISH
 * When in doubt, don't delete. WP:DOUBT
 * There has been no work done on the talk page here. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water. WP:BATHWATER
 * This might be an example of Overzealous deletion. WP: ZEAL  Nothing has been mentioned here that ultimately warrants deletion.
 * WP:JNN Simply stating that a subject is not notable, the sources are unreliable or is not sufficient to get it deleted on this basis.
 * These sites are clearly third party and not bias.  Fight Club Article

These reasons should be enough to conclude that while the article may benefit from additional development, like all articles on Wikipedia. But a significant amount of reliable information is here that would be of interest to a potential reader who is interested in genre movies or any of the cult movies listed here. it should not be kept. Verireal (talk) 07:55, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm not sure if this is the place for it, but three users: Verireal, WiniBot356, FidelityTree have worked almost exclusively on this subject's page and have all written (and voted) in this discussion. The thing that puzzles me is that they all use the same hyper-correct, hyper-linking writing style which I've rarely seen - especially from new editors with virtually no editing history - and all have a huge interest in this subject. This tells me that I either may have missed a huge following of the subject or that there may be some WP:SOCK going on. Since I have never dealt with this can anyone help me determine if this warrants a Sockpuppet investigation? I've never done it and am not really familiar with the criteria. Lexlex (白痴美國) (talk) 11:40, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment May I ask that we please, Assume good faith and WP:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers. I can't speak for others, but though I'm a new comer, I'm doing my best to help the Wikipedia community, and would appreciate if we can stay on subject.  If there is another subject that needs my help I will be there! Verireal (talk) 19:55, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - Just to be clear, I do not see this as an example of not assuming good faith or of biting the newcomer. Lexlex has just voiced an opinion that has merit.  Perhaps a Sock Investigation is warranted.  red dog six  (talk) 00:59, 15 May 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.