Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Albert (writer) (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 no consensus due to lack of participation. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:20, 23 April 2021 (UTC) Edited per request at 15:21, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Scott Albert (writer)
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log )

Kept at AfD in a very different time for biographical notability. He's had a prolific career, but none of the projects appear notable. I can find no reviews of the novel for which he was a co-author nor any other indication he meets creative notability guidelines. Note: he does not appear to be the Scott Albert who worked on Paw Patrol.      StarM 17:06, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.       StarM 17:06, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.       StarM 17:06, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.       StarM 17:06, 25 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete. Writers are not automatically notable just because their work exists; they need to show some evidence of significance (notable literary or screenwriting awards, etc.), not just verification of existence. But this features no indication of significance, and it's referenced 50 per cent to directory entries (IMDb, Yahoo Movies, the self-published schedule listing of a TV channel, etc.) that aren't support for notability at all — and while the other four footnotes are real media, three of them are neighbourhood hyperlocals and/or alt-weeklies (which would be fine for use if there were other, better sources around them, but are not widely distributed enough to carry a WP:GNG pass all by themselves if they're more or less all the coverage he actually has), while the Playback hit (, since it hasn't actually been linked in the article) is a glancing namecheck of his existence in a piece that isn't about him, which means it's also not solid enough to vault him over the bar all by itself. And furthermore, I can find no indication that any film called Hunt for the Devil was actually produced or released at all, as there's no film of that title listed in any of Scott Albert's, John McFetridge's or Michael Madsen's IMDb profiles. Bearcat (talk) 13:52, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Will these publications count?, , . The urls seem to prove that he is the Scott Albert who worked on Paw Patrol - see his Imdb page - . Кирилл С1 (talk) 12:24, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * No, those don't help. They're all press releases from organizations that have directly employed or contracted him, where we're looking for third party journalism about him and his work in media outlets. And even if he is the Scott Albert who worked on PAW Patrol, that still isn't an automatic notability freebie that would exempt him from actually having to have any legitimate sources. Bearcat (talk) 14:54, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I do not know why Animation World Network can not be counted as independent reliable source. I just felt that nomination should be addressed. Кирилл С1 (talk) 14:56, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for flagging. I struck that part of my nom, although I still don't see notability for his work.      StarM 15:49, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The problem with the Animation World Network citation is that it isn't a journalist-written piece, but merely a press release from Albert's own employer that AWN reprinted verbatim. (See "Source: SkyFarm Company" at the end of it.) Even generally reliable sources will sometimes just reprint primary source press releases and/or "sponsored advertising content" without actually producing their own original reporting — so we don't just consider the source named in the URL, we also check what kind of content it is, and dismiss press releases and sponsored advertising as being worth much less than real journalism. But even if we were to accept it just because AWN would be acceptable sourcing in some other contexts, it would still take more than just one acceptable source to get him over GNG. Bearcat (talk) 15:55, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:41, 3 April 2021 (UTC) <div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:29, 11 April 2021 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.