Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Storm

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.

(conjugate) 08:45, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Scott Storm

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

References consist of links to IMDb (fails independence), OC Weekly (which lacks broad circulation), and the subject's personal website (which also fails independence). While some of the subject's works may be notable, the subject himself does not appear to have received the attention of multiple reliable independent verifiable news sources to qualify for a stand-alone article. The awards mentioned in the article are either not notable or are awards for the film, not the subject himself. A search for sources turns up LinkedIn, Twitter, Vimeo, and some unrelated sites for snow goggles. This appears to be a mostly promotional article (could have gone under G11). KDS4444^Talk 15:43, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:37, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 20:31, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 20:31, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I disagree that the awards are not notable, as most of these film festivals have their own articles the awards conferred by them should be considered at least significant and the number awarded to the subject is notable IMO and passes WP:GNG. Atlantic306 (talk) 14:33, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now at best as Books immediately found a few passing mentions but this is still questionable. SwisterTwister talk 02:15, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:55, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:18, 17 February 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.