Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nick Counter

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:32, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Counter

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Delete This article has been unsourced for at least half a decade, and there has been no attempt to add real citations to it during the entirety of that time. The way the article described this controversial figure across many paragraphs indicated that it was likely taken directly from a publicist or a family-written obituary. Based on the fact that the current representative of the AMPTP, an industry trade group, doesn't have a Wikipedia page, there is no reason to believe Counter meets any criteria for notability. No notability has been established on any grounds, and there is nothing of merit that comes only from this page. PickleG13 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:17, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 July 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:56, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Law. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:13, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Forget the lack of citations, I just don't think he passes WP:GNG. For anyone else looking at this, it does look like the article used to be much longer and then got cut down, but even the longer version was mostly uncited. Kalethan (talk) 14:11, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly Keep, although it will take a bit of work. I have added two LA times articles to the article, both of which are long enough to be significant. However, since both are by the same writer, I went further and have found the following citations:

“Strike-Stalled Agents Flip for Facebook: Hey, Let’s ‘Poke’ Nick Counter!” The New York Observer (New York, NY), 18 Dec. 2007. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edsgin&AN=edsgcl.172593989&scope=site.
Robb, David. “Nick Counter Paints Grim Picture of Film Industry Future; Implies Teetering on Economic Disaster.” Variety, vol. 321, Oct. 1985, p. 3. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edsgao&AN=edsgcl.3996380&scope=site.
Robb, David. “Straight Shooter’s Style Was Right on Nose.” Hollywood Reporter, vol. 412, no. 12, Nov. 2009, p. 22. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edsgsr&AN=edsgcl.213084111&scope=site.
Diorio, Carl. “Studios Show Some Flexibility. (Cover Story).” Hollywood Reporter -- International Edition, vol. 400, no. 56, Oct. 2007, pp. 1–65. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=f6h&AN=27490703&scope=site.

That's a sampling, and his name comes up in more articles about Hollywood and labor. There is enough here, I assume, to fill out the entry. Lamona (talk) 18:10, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:12, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the LA Times articles added as references and the sources above that together show a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view Atlantic306 (talk) 23:15, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:24, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Appears to be enough to pass GNG [[1]] User:Let'srun 00:38, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems to meet WP:BASIC or GNG. Sometimes notability only appears after death, but that does not mean they are only notable for that. If needed, an ATD is a redirect to 2007–08 Writers Guild of America strike is appropriate as the subject is quoted in that article. —siro χ o 01:30, 26 July 2023 (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.