Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tracy Tormé


 * 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. JohnCD (talk) 18:17, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Tracy Tormé

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

OK, I'll be the one to say it. A blind man could look at current article and want to BLOW IT UP. It is a DISASTER. Quis separabit? 01:35, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  sst  ✈  01:59, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * REDIRECT to father (Mel Torme)'s page in the alternative. Quis separabit?  20:40, 28 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment While the article itself is indeed in bad shape, this has nothing to do with whether the article subject is notable. A quick look indicates that it probably is, though I could be persuaded otherwise. Nwlaw63 (talk) 22:25, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I never claimed the subject is non-notable (check this out), just that the article is irreparably compromised, IMHO. Quis separabit?  22:37, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Instead of having the article deleted, I think what you want to do is be bold and simply removed all the unsourced opinion from the article - if that leaves a stub, so be it. Nwlaw63 (talk) 16:05, 23 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: I'll try to remember to take a look at this. But the subject is almost certainly notable (come on – the guy who created Sliders isn't "notable"?!...). I suspect this just needs some better sourcing, and some article "clean up". I'm really not sure this is a "WP:STARTOVER" case. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:49, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Again -- I never said the subject is not notable but that the article is compromised to such an extent that it should be redone and reviewed. Quis separabit?  01:57, 23 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep There is nothing in WP:DEL-REASON to explain why an article should be deleted in order provide a clean slate to start over. Blow it up and start over is an essay, but if we're going to go that way then read Don't cite essays or proposals as if they were policy (although I appreciate the irony of quoting that particular one). Miyagawa (talk) 10:58, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * "Essays and proposals should only be cited as opinion or advice, not admonishment. They should not be used as an end-run around the Wikipedia process of establishing consensus."@Miyagawa, I stand by my nomination. I think the article should be blown up because it is devoid of integrity. I could have shaved into a stub myself had I elected to do so. As far as the above quote goes, AFD is by definition about seeking consensus. I don't think I've been more of an admonisher on this thread any more than I am anywhere else or than anyone else is. In any event, if I was guilty of such, then I have clearly been supplanted in that role. Quis separabit?  14:22, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Just select the deletion criteria that applies to this request and then we can have the discussion about the article. In my reading of that article, it doesn't require actually deleting the article in order to start over with it. I have created several articles in userspace which I've then used to entirely replace existing articles because there was nothing worth saving on them. But by doing it that way, it retains the edit history. Someone had to post what I wrote above, because this is a listing in articles for deletion where the criteria under the deletion was not mentioned by the person who opened the discussion. The admonishment part of the essay I mentioned had nothing to do with what you posted, it was the crux of the title that I listed it for. Except of course that was using an essay to say not to use essays, which in itself isn't a policy and actually says in the text of it not to use it as an essay. But you get my point. Miyagawa (talk) 18:41, 24 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Mel Tormé perhaps if questionably solidly notable. SwisterTwister   talk  06:18, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Before coming over here, I did a massive clean-up of the article. It is now a stub.  Details on the clean-up are at the article's Talk page.  NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:26, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Glad you stubbed it but looks even less notable now. Should be redirected to father's page. Wonder if we'll wind up having an AFD (2nd nomination). Quis separabit?  20:40, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The original article didn't just suffer from poor writing; it also suffered from poor research. The subject was nominated for the 1993 Saturn Award for Best Writing for the film Fire in the Sky, and I've updated the article to reflect this.  The overwhelming majority of the screenwriters who have been nominated for this long-running award have their own articles.  NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:24, 28 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Now that it has been stubbed it can be properly expanded with RS (hopefully by a sci-fi expert) as I think that creating Sliders and his work on Star Trek Next Generation makes this writer notable.Atlantic306 (talk) 02:35, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep As above - now that the questionable material has been removed, a real article can be written. Does appear to have sufficient coverage in reliable secondary sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 15:52, 29 January 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.