Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raymond Martino


 * 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. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 02:32, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Raymond Martino

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

does not meet GNG as actor/director. —Мандичка YO 😜 05:13, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note to, just to inform... meeting WP:CREATIVE as a screenwriter, producer, or director requires his work receive coverage, not he. And meeting WP:ENT as an actor, requires his roles be significant in notable works. Neither mandates that he himself meet Schmidt, ' Michael Q.'' 03:34, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you arguing that he meets GNG at WP:CREATIVE or WP:ENT? I don't believe he does. It appears that he's done some straight-to-video movies and been mainly an extra as an actor based on his credits.  —Мандичка YO 😜 04:29, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Reply to : Nope, just addressing your deletion rational. While the GNG is fine, it is not a absolute mandated requirement for actors or directors/producers/screenwriters who may for some reason choose to keep a low media profile. But if someone determines that works lacking Wikipedia articles with which he has creative input as director or writer or producer have themselves been the recipient of critical commentary or analysis, then he might slide in under an SNG even with a failure of GNG. Just sayin'.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 12:01, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * When I said he doesn't meet GNG as actor/director it should have been obvious I was referring to the individual creative standards, and I don't see anybody who is confused or needs special guidance about what protocols to follow.  —Мандичка YO 😜 12:44, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  Human 3015   TALK    06:50, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  Human 3015   TALK    06:51, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete as I see nothing convincing. SwisterTwister   talk  05:32, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor Talk! 00:43, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * possible weak Keep. Director of two mainstream films, even if both of them are considered of no real merit.   DGG ( talk ) 02:21, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * FYI these were not mainstream films released in the theater, but straight to video. —Мандичка YO 😜 04:29, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sure he knows that... but it's not the issue, as many direct-to-video projects can and have been determined as notable.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 12:01, 5 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - Both of his directing gigs are of films of questionable notability (even though they both have articles, both are very sparsely sourced). One of them is a definite direct to video, and the other one very well might be (the production company was primarily direct to video).  Onel 5969  TT me 02:44, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note to : Just to inform, in considering WP:CREATIVE or WP:ENT... he has written, produced, or directed or acted in far more than just "two" projects.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 03:34, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * None of his other films are notable, and most of his acting credits are as extras (a few of which are not even credited). He just doesn't meet notability any way you look at it. —Мандичка YO 😜 04:33, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Reply to : As Wikipedia is far from complete, not having an article here does not make a film or television project automatically non-notable. He has directed or produced or written some blue-linked projects, and there may be suitable sources for some others. Just sayin'.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 12:01, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know why you're arguing this hypothetically. We're here to determine notability, so claiming "there may be suitable sources" out there contributes nothing to the discussion. Either they're are or they're aren't. Nobody said anything about his projects having articles or argued WP is complete.  —Мандичка YO 😜 12:44, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Will the sun rise tomorrow? Probably... but until it does it remains a (high probability) hypothetical (chuckle). And yes, if someone finds that his works not written of here have suitable notability, we could argue WP:CREATIVE. I am not doing that now, and as I am about to head out to work, I will not be doing it (today). But if someone else thinks it worth doing before I return, fine. If not, then not. But it hurts nothing to give someone the idea to look, as there is time yet, and I cannot and will not declare something non-notable because of assumptions to the negative.   Schmidt,  Michael Q. 15:22, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr  \ talk / 03:32, 8 November 2015 (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.