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. views in each direction without and strong argument prevailing or consensus Nja²⁴⁷ 08:48, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Honig[edit]

Jake Honig (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This young filmaker might be notable one day but lacks significant coverge today. citation on his student film is commendable but isn't enough to meet WP:BIO or WP:CREATIVE RadioFan (talk) 01:41, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As A7 decliner. Two independent, non-trivial reliable sources meet WP:GNG. Of all the 18 year olds who've created articles about their accomplishments on Wikipedia, this is the only one that really makes a good case for notability. His film garnered statewide recognition and an award. Oh, and he gets points in my book for not linking to a MySpace or Facebook page, either. ;-) Jclemens (talk) 06:47, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both because it appears to have WP:CoI and for the reasons listed. Gosox5555 (talk) 14:30, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  COI is not a reason for deletion, but a reason to seriously consider the need for an NPOV rewrite. Jclemens (talk) 17:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep - subject meets the GNG and thus qualifies for inclusion. One of the sources was "dead" so I converted it to a cite news template. The story can still be viewed in Google's cache for now: [1] in case anyone feels the need to verify its authenticity. The film appears to be gaining momentum and is only a month old, so I think a technical qualification under GNG is sufficient for now. "Weak keep" because I wouldn't object to revisiting the subject at a later date, but as it stands now I think technically qualification is sufficient. (P.S. a COI is not a valid reason to delete.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for now. A couple of mentions in local news media in connection with a single event is not really enough to confer permanent encyclopedic notability. Hqb (talk) 10:10, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.