Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Siegel (producer)


 * 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. Michig (talk) 11:28, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Michael Siegel (producer)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Insufficient evidence of notability—the article's sources are unreliable and/or mention the subject only in passing. Psychonaut (talk) 13:10, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 14:44, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 14:44, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete non-notable producer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:34, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 00:18, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete This person exists, but I have been unable to find any significant coverage of him in independent, reliable sources. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  02:02, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - not enough to indicate notability.--Rpclod (talk) 18:22, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete fails notability generally and BLP specifically. As noted by the nom, there are three sources in the stub, two of which are unreliable and one that has less than significant coverage of the subject. A quick online search shows that there have been zero news articles about this person. As I've noted at AfD before, producers are so common as to be run of the mill, and most have no creative input into films or music, but are rather just non-banking financiers or fiduciaries. There is no evidence that the subject here has done anything beyond signing some contracts to allow films be made from the decedent's works of fiction. Since this is such a clear case of abuse of our charitable standing, I'm invoking WP:SNOW and WP:SALT. Bearian (talk) 18:32, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Unless the article has been repeatedly recreated, I see no need to salt it. —Psychonaut (talk) 11:31, 1 November 2016 (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.