Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Balazo


 * 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.  Materialscientist (talk) 06:56, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Michael Balazo

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Comedian I can find little info for (yet another page that has been here for a long time) For years it was nothing but unsourced info, which I can't find any back up for. Wgolf (talk) 20:27, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:45, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:45, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:46, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Created in 2008 by an SPA IP. An SPA named MichaelBelazzo removed swaths of unsourced bio years ago.  More to the point, he has a couple of minor writing credits on IMDB, this is not a WP:RS, but it is a useful way to check on potential notability, writing credits for a fee sitcom episodes ≠ notability. a gNews search  doesn't either.  Looks like Delete, but if someone can make a solid, well-sourced argugment for notability, feel free to pig me to reconsider.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:58, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 00:02, 17 March 2019 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sheldybett (talk) 02:28, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete There is no article Lubbad85 (talk) 03:48, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment There is no article because the subject of the article deleted most of it, and then an IP editor removed the rest of the content. One Google result shows "Canadian Screen Award for Best Writing in a Variety or Sketch Comedy Program or Series" attached to his name - I haven't really tried to verify that, as it seems that Wikipedia doesn't consider it a notable award category anyway (at least, it doesn't have a bluelink in the Canadian Screen Awards article). Searching on Michael Balazo's name, I can find a review and a short para about the Gentlemen Callers on Newspapers.com, , and an article in an ezine with one longish sentence about him, and some quotes from him . While it might be possible to find more, these meagre results don't suggest a strong notability that would warrant an article whether the subject wants it or not. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:29, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. While he does have a Canadian Screen Award nomination for television writing, and thus would be eligible to have an article if it were properly sourced, clearing a notability criterion in theory does not constitute a free exemption from actually having to have any reliable source coverage about him. For one thing, he received the nomination as one member of a 14-person writing team, not as an individual in his own right — and for another, the problem with Canadian Screen Awards is that ever since the Genie-Gemini merger exploded the number of CSA categories into the hundreds, media don't publish the complete list of nominees anymore but just selectively report the most high-profile categories. So we have to rely on the Academy's own website to get a CSA article finished — but we still get blocked because the Academy has either discontinued or technically forked up (I'm not sure which) its historical database of past winners and nominees, so at the moment even the nomination itself can't actually be sourced anywhere but the show's own self-published press release tooting its own horn. (Which is why the category article's missing: it's not that it isn't a notable category in theory, it's that we can't find the proper sources in fact to actually build an article about it with.) And that's exactly why a CSA nomination, in one of the less important categories, is not an inclusion freebie that exempts a person from actually having to have any sources at all. Bearcat (talk) 18:27, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete with no prejudice against a new article, well-sourced article in future should his career warrant it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 06:58, 27 March 2019 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.