Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Colletti


 * 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. (non-admin closure) LlamaAl (talk) 00:02, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Stephen Colletti

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No significant coverage of the subject by reliable sources, has been in a state of no significant sourcing since at least 2007 -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  22:31, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 11 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Weak keep, the question here is whether the subject passes WP:NACTOR, the subject has received significant coverage in multiple entertainment sources, and as the subject was in two notable programs (Laguna Beach: The Real Orange County & One Tree Hill), the subject passes NACTOR. That being said the article is in bad shape and needs more inline references, and is largely subject to WP:BURDEN, but AfD is not a substitute for cleanup.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:06, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * what "significant coverage"? the only things I found was gossip coverage that he was dating/breaking up with various people. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  12:45, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * He has been the primary subject of articles in such publications as People Magazine, E! Online, and to a lesser extent in other publications (which TRPD has rightly described as gossip pieces). As these are not standard publications, I do not weight these heavily. However, as I stated the subject has been in two notable productions, which is the bare minimum stated in NACTOR. Due to this, I can only support some form of keep. I do not have a general interest in actor articles, so YMMV on what one person considers notable, and I am only going off NACTOR.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:42, 12 February 2013 (UTC)


 * KEEP per significant roles in multiple notable production AND significant enough coverage in multiple reliable sources. This one is now fine and can only get better.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 07:28, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * can you identify which of the sources actually has  significant coverage about the subject? cause Stephen Colletti, still fighting to acquire some charm to animate his idol looks, is a guest V.J. on MTV is textbook in passing mention.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  07:31, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The instruction of WP:ENT is met and significant roles in notable productions are verified. WP:BLP is not violated. Building the article further can come over time and through regular editing. His notability is not for being covered in news... he is notable for his works. Thanks.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 07:38, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * that may be your definition of notability, but Wikipedia's definition of notability is that third party reliable sources have taken notice of your work. his participation in neither the reality show nor the other TV show nor dating a bunch of other celebutants is in any way groundbreaking nor exceptional.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  07:43, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * No... not "my" definition, but rather one specifically described in guideline and the verification of his significant roles is available in the many reliable sources (and yes, some unreliable) that have decided to take notice in some manner. While the simplest manner by which to determine notability, the GNG is not the only method we editors might use. Not all articles can or will be about folks as delightfully notable asLawrence Olivier. This one can only get better. Thanks.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 07:55, 13 February 2013 (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.