Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Messer


 * 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. NAC. Joe Chill (talk) 22:51, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Jonathan Messer

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Does not indicate encyclopedic notability: IMDb. Twice deleted via PRODs. -- Jeandré (talk), 2009-11-06t11:54z 11:54, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - just about notable enough. Has been mentioned in reliable sources. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Mentioned 2 sources IMDb and published media in references/sources ([[User talk:Pellican54|talk]) 01:18, 9 November 2009
 * Keep - the article has been re-edited since it was first deleted and extra sources added to pass. Has reliable sources--Dreamsurfer (talk) 07:10, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Appears to meet the guidelines. BearShare998 (talk) 00:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 15:39, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep, but noting SPA concerns about the above votes . The article needs heavy cleanup. Several of the sources are nonsense. Nevertheless, it seems Messer has made an adequate mark in the industry to have an article: two reviews in The Age and a blurb about him on Museum of the Moving Image's site.   Jujutacular  T · C 01:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Spammy coi entry. Delete most of the article and leave what is sourced duffbeerforme (talk) 16:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

I think this AfD can be closed now. Consensus seems to be that he's notable enough but that it needs clean up and to be patrolled. If disruptive editing continues it can be protected. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:07, 20 November 2009 (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.