Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Block (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 Delete. The two sources that were attached to the article are extremely trivial. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Block

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

An executive producer and showrunner for short-lived non-notable shows in a short-lived tv channel. Article reads like a promotional bio.

None of the generally accepted criteria for specific or general notability are seen, no awards, no recognition in particular for his work etc.

I have no doubt this guy exists and has worked in media, but wikipedia is not for everyone who has an IMDB entry - it is for notable people, who this person certainly doesn't seem to be. Cerejota (talk) 01:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, notice how little improvement there has been to the article since "no consensus" in 2007. --Cerejota (talk) 01:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Cerejota (talk) 01:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Cerejota (talk) 01:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- Cerejota (talk) 01:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only one marginally notable work, no sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 01:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No references. Article has been around for about 5 years. Bejinhan Talk 04:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per numerous sources available that could be used to improve the article and both assert and show an industry notability that meets WP:GNG. Its sad that no one's done it, but that no one has bothered is not a reason to delete if there is a reasonable presumption that improvements could eventually be done. I might even have a go at it tonight myself so as to lead by example. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet WP:CREATIVE. Google News sources are insufficient to create an article without severe wikipuffery being involved. Notability is not inherited, and when the thing he is most notable for, PajamasTV, is not itself notable, that says something. I think MQS is wasting his time if he tries to improve this, but I'll weigh in again with an open mind after he does so. THF (talk) 05:27, 1 March 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.