Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pascal Trottier

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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:58, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pascal Trottier

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP of a screenwriter with no strong claim to passing WP:CREATIVE. His only named credits are two films where he was one member of a multi-writer team (and none of his other colleagues on either film has a standalone article yet), and one episode of a television series -- and with one primary source and one reference that covers a tangential fact about the film but entirely fails to even mention his name in conjunction with it, this is based on exactly zero reliable source coverage of him. In addition, it warrants note that the article was created by an SPA whose username ("Pasukaru1978") is a Japanification of the article subject's own first name, thus suggesting a probable conflict of interest. As always, Wikipedia is not a free public relations platform where anybody is entitled to start an article about themselves the moment any web page at all can be shown to verify their existence -- RS coverage about him in media, supporting a claim of notability that passes a Wikipedia inclusion criterion, must be present for him to become eligible for inclusion here. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if and when more substance and better sourcing can be shown. Bearcat (talk) 17:28, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 23:02, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 23:02, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Besides the award in the article, there's also some critical commentary on his work. For example: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. However, there isn't a lot that's specifically about him, like interviews. I don't know if that's enough to establish notability through WP:CREATIVE criterion #3. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:23, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am similarly on the fence with this one. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:10, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What I see there is glancing mentions of his name in articles about the film, not all of which are even reliable sources (some are, yes, but a couple of them aren't.) But that's not enough to get a person into Wikipedia in and of itself if genuinely substantive coverage about him is lacking. Bearcat (talk) 15:26, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:02, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I've found a few several links at News but still nothing actually noticeably better. SwisterTwister talk 23:32, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:33, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Yes, of those proffered by NinjaRobotPirate, just one is unreliable. Fine. But the authored reviews of Trottier's work in Los Angeles Times, Bloody-Disgusting, Fangoria, Now Toronto, and Hollywood Reporter are in reliable sources. So sorry SwisterTwister and Bearcat, but in the lack of coverage about him personally, guideline tells us to look at WP:CREATIVE #4-C and thanks to those proffered by NinjaRobotPirate and many others, we may accept a notability through Trottier's work undeniably having "won significant critical attention". It's a suitable stub that will benefit Wikipedia through expansion and growth over time, but not through a deletion. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:12, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Schmidt's accurate analysis and sources. WP:CREATIVE is met. Cavarrone 08:09, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:57, 14 June 2016 (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.