Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Hely


 * 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. Looks like the Emmy nomination argument was pretty well refuted; you're free to disagree, though: DRV is that way ->. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 14:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Steve Hely
Delete: Non-notable television writer. Not every television staff writer is notable This is it, make no mistake anymore 03:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC) Comment: Not creator, director or main actor, just a staff writer. There's usually dozens of these guys and they get hired and fired every week. This guy just happened to be on the staf when the large writing team at one show he worked for was nominated for an Emmy. Unless it can be shown that he is a significant and important figure in the show he's non-notable. This is it, make no mistake anymore 02:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Reasonably important writer according to the credentials listed in the article. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 04:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Nominated for an Emmy for Letterman. Sounds notable to me.  Rangek 04:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC) Delete.  This is it, make no mistake anymore has convinced me of the error of my previosu opinion. Rangek 03:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. Michael 06:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Emmy nominated = notable. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  11:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Is this really so clear cut? Large shows like Letterman will have quite large staffs of writers. When the show is nominated, the entire staff gets nominated. Making emmy nomination the bar, then, could lead to articles about thousands of minor television writers. I say we draw the line of notability at lead writers (or somewhere like that) to prevent this onslought of borderline-vanity articles. This is it, make no mistake anymore 12:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes. It's pretty well established that a major award, or nomination thereof, in any field (Emmys, Oscars, Pulitzar, Nobel Prizes, etc) are reason for inclusion.  As for whether this leads to inclusion of "minor" people, I would say that those winning or nominated for such an award can no longer be considered "minor" in their field.  Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  13:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It's pretty well established that a major award, or nomination thereof, in any field (Emmys, Oscars, Pulitzar, Nobel Prizes, etc) are reason for inclusion.  Except for the inconvenient fact that he WASN'T nominated -- a group of 15 staff writers was nominated. --Calton | Talk 00:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. I just followed the link provided on Hely's article and found that approximately 95 people were nominated for Emmys in 2003 for writing alone. I imagine, according to your logic, I am justified in going ahead and creating 95 stubs stating that these folks won emmys? maybe then I should proceed to other emmy categories, then to daytime emmys, then to other years, etc? Just want to make sure I have your go-ahead to create thousands of stubs about otherwise non-notable individuals. This is it, make no mistake anymore 14:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * If you're willing to do the work, go for it. As far as Emmy noms are concerned, I'd imagine our coverage of actors is far more comprehensive than our coverage of writers, so effort in closing the gap would be appreciated. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  21:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Very well then. I have already started. See Steve Bodow, Tamara Koubov and Frederica Iacoponi. This should be fun; thank you for giving me something to do for the next year. I trust that, should any of these be suggested for deletion you will intervene on their behalf. This is it, make no mistake anymore 23:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * While you're at it, also check out Sandra Masone, a boom oprator for General Hospital whois notable according to your standards.This is it, make no mistake anymore 01:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * In keeping with your notability guidelines, I also created Philip Teodorski who was nominated for the fine work he did creating the opeing credits for a local newscast. This is it, make no mistake anymore 02:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per emmy nomination Localzuk (talk) 14:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete as per nom. I remain unconvinced that an Emmy nomination confers automatic notability. Where's the articles for people who have been Emmy-nominated for lighting? editing? casting? gaffer? single-camera picture editing? multi-camera picture editing? key grip? and how about the Emmy nominees for hairstyling?  Aside from actors, most people who have been Emmy-nominated are people that no one has ever heard of and no one ever will. wikipediatrix 14:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Emmy nomination for major role on very famous show. Drett 15:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, being Emmy-nominated suggests serious notability. Yamaguchi先生 19:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Being Emmy-nominated here suggests nothing, since he's one of a group of 15 writers being nominated for one show. It's not a nomination for his work, it's for being part of a group of 15. And, more to the point, that group didn't even win. --Calton | Talk 00:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete I don't think merely being nominated is a guarentee of nobility at all, such people can still be quite easily "minor" in a field, especially if 95 people are nominated. I mean look at the articles someone created here, a Boom Operator nominated for an emmy guarentees they are no longer minor? I just don't buy it. Homestarmy 01:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Could the nominator of this article please explain why they have nominated something for deletion which they have edited quite a bit - it seems like there has been quite a revert war between This is it, make no mistake anymore and This is it, make no mistake anymore. Have a look at the history. Drett 01:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: I am a relatively new user. As I have learned more about wikipedia guidelines, I have come to realize more that this article is about a non-notable topic. I feel that I have provided legitimate wikipedia arguments for this position (eg large teams of people nominated, the boom operator example,etc.). However, I have noted that according to the majority here(consensus) so far, the standard for notability is mere nomination and, as such, I have contributed to the wikipedia according to these notability guidelines. This is it, make no mistake anymore 02:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * strong delete Assertion of notability is grossly exaggerated or has been falsified. article implies Hely was personally nominated for Emmy for Letterman. Seems not to be the case, as per above, so the subject's most serious claim to notability is scratch for WP:NPOV. Ohconfucius 04:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment To be fair, Hely was mentioned by name in the nomination. This is it, make no mistake anymore 12:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - notability should hinge on demonstrable achievement not just an Emmy nom that can be something or nothing. BlueValour 04:00, 13 August 2006 (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.