Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Hudecki (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 keep. Interesting discussion. There has been some slight misunderstanding of WP:V. Verifiability is a policy which asks that we have reliable proof for questionable material – it does not ask for evidence of notability. Verifiability in this case is met for the existence of this person, and for some of what is claimed he has done by the reliable source of the New York Times. However, there are elements of the article that are questionable, are not sourced, and so those parts of the article under WP:V should be removed (without the need to discuss the matter). An example is “he developed the digital animation style that was used for the series Stickin' Around”. As verifiability has been met, the question is now if this topic / person meets our notability guidelines. There has been some discussion on which notability guideline has most authority. The guidelines are there to give guidance – they are the summary of consensus reached in previous discussions. The more precise a guideline, the more helpful it is. The GNG is a general guideline which covers most notability discussions. However, WP:BIO (and its sub-section WP:ENT) is a more precise guideline for topics such as this – therefore it is generally seen that where we have a precise guideline, we use that one. It’s not a question of authority or usurping, it is simply a question of using the most appropriate guideline. In this and the previous AfD people felt that WP:BIO had been met through the person having met WP:CREATIVE 3 by directing Little Rosie. It is a shame that the article on Little Rosie doesn’t assert or prove notability, but notability is assumed as we have an article on it, and a Google search throws up information. As this person meets our topic specific notability guidelines it should be kept – but the article does need trimming of all unsourced claims under WP:V. SilkTork *YES! 13:57, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Hudecki

AfDs for this article:
Peter Hudecki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unnotable person. Fails WP:N and WP:BIO and without significant coverage, can not properly meet WP:BLP. The only news coverage found mentioning this person was for a lacrosse coach, and not this Hudecki, which is particularly telling that a local coach got more press than this person. Prod removed by User:T. Anthony without explanation. Previous AfD closed after several folks said his directing a series made him notable, however, per actual guidelines it does not, and without actual significant coverage of Hudecki himself, per Wikipedia's guidelines regarding living people, his article can have almost no actual content or claims, so deletion is the better option. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Meets WP:N and WP:BIO as a producer, director, and animator with a career spanning 3 decades. Pity that he shares the name with an sports figure, but OUR Hudecki is written of in a few books, and his career can be be sourced to meet WP:ENT. And no, WP:ENT does not also require meeting WP:GNG... if it did, there would be no reason for WP:ENT to even exist. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:03, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, EP:ENT DOES require meeting WP:GNG. WP:GNG can not be ursurped by a subject-specific guideline. ALL articles most meet WP:GNG. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:32, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm sorry to disagree, but if all subjects needed to meet the WP:GNG first, then there would be absolutely no reason for it or ANY of the many sub-criteria of WP:N to even exist. All the many sub-criteria of WP:N were written specifically to address notability of topics that might not otherwise meet the GNG, as guideline accepts and explains that there are other ways by which to measure and source notability. What is required under sub-criteria is meeting POLICY in being verifiable in reliable sources. However, you are always welcome to nominate any of WP:N's sub-criteria for deletion if you think that they are either unclear or poorly written or somehow usurp policy. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:26, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with MQS. The relationship of the GNG to the special guidelines varies. As the clearest example, WP:PROF is fully accepted as an alternative. Others one may be similar, or may be in addition, or as explanations, or giving more detailed interpretations. There is no general rule for this. In any case GNG is not basic policy--it's merely a presumption as one part of WP:N. And even WP:N is not policy, but a guideline. Attempts top make it policy have consistently failed. Thee is no "constitution" at Wikipedia to which other rules must conform, except possibly WP:FIVE, and even those are interpreted by more detailed rules. As I recall, 3 years ago when I had just joined there was a long discussion of this relationship, which reached no general conclusion, and attempts at a unified inclusion rule have consistently failed. for lack of consensus. Not only does collecteana's statement not have the necessary wide consensus for a general policy, but I think it's probably a minority view. Wikipedia is an empirical operation, and different subjects require different ways of dealing with them. (this is not a !vote to keep--last time round, in fact, I said delete. Now I need to think about it further.) DGG ( talk ) 04:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The general consensus is that WP:ENT is inclusive, rather than restrictive: someone gets in if they meet WP:ENT or WP:GNG (though, realistically, there's enough media coverage of entertainment that it is impossible to meet WP:ENT without also meeting WP:GNG--I can't think of a single counterexample). It's moot in this case, because this guy does neither. THF (talk) 20:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
comment. How is this article "well-referenced" when it has zero references?!? THF (talk) 19:48, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
comment. What's the basis for claiming that this bio meets WP:ENT? THF (talk) 19:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm arguing for prolific and important work. So basically 1 and 3. It's a weak argument, but it does look like he's done a lot of shows (many of which I, a non-film person, recognize). File it as "ILIKEIT" perhaps, but being producer for Babar, and co-director for The Adventures of Tintin make me believe he's notable. Being the director for Little Rosie helps too. These are notable works and being director or producer for them seems to meet the letter and spirit of WP:ENT. Any one of them wouldn't put him over that bar for me, but all of them (plus faculty member, plus all the other credits) make it fairly clear to me. Hobit (talk) 16:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He was the "line producer," not the producer of Babar; and he was the "second unit director" for Tintin.[1] Neither are notable positions. The article exaggerates the biography; I've corrected that. THF (talk) 16:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Struck !vote based on link provided by THF. I don't know how notable "line producer" or "second unit director" is. Little Rosie credits might be enough, but not sure enough to comment at this point. Hobit (talk) 20:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Notability may not be policy, but verification is, and this article has absolutely none. In two lengthy AfD discussions, there's not been a single reference uncovered that provides independent verification of the notability of this person, much less any sourcing whatsoever that supports the subject's detailed accomplishments. There are no references, and the only external links are to user-contributed IMDB, dead links, a university bio page and a related company pages. Flowanda | Talk 06:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. On the face of it the article seems to make a reasonable claim to notability, but it fails on the complete lack of independent reliable sources, as noted by Flowanda above: the only significant coverage I can find is from his university page and Wikipedia mirrors. If he really was notable, there would be information about him in third-party references; as there isn't, he probably isn't. Robofish (talk) 17:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Even when using your "other ways", the article doesn't stand up to anything, Wikipedia or not. Multiple editors have found no sources for the information already in the article or that provide any evidence of the qualifications for any of the subsections or niches listed. Flowanda | Talk 10:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Simply non-notable. I really dislike the way GNG has been over-used lately to try to shoehorn in non-notable people just because some writer, somewhere, once decided to write something about the person. That's just WP:ILIKEIT once removed. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Verifiability concerns are serious, but we dont delete articles for presently being unverified, but for being unverifiable. The difference between the two may just be work, e.g. finding this [3]. Same story with notability, the material question is if a person with this profile would likely pass. The answer is yes, also per the discussion at the first AfD. I'm concerned about the nomination. It's surprising and disquieting if an editor (the nom) with 90,000 edits under his belt, presents such a distorted wiew of the WP:GNG and the speciality WP:N guidelines. The original nom also cited a violation of WP:BLP which is also misleading, if not grossly misleading, as the article contains no harmful info, if anything, the concerns could be vanity. These guidelines produce much cover for poor deletion rationales. Power.corrupts (talk) 10:19, 9 January 2010 (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.