Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill L. Norton

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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. LFaraone 19:34, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bill L. Norton

[edit]

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

Bill L. Norton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The LA Times article is the only source on page which primarily discusses Norton himself and not his films independently. Couldn't find any additional coverage. Even with a WP:FILMMAKER #3 pass, I hardly find it valuable if sources only wanna mention the man in passing when he's credited for something rather than actually discuss him specifically. QuietHere (talk) 08:01, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Television. QuietHere (talk) 08:01, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment FILM 3 is for a collective body of work or well-reviewed films, one cult classic that didn't become so until 36 years later and only just barely gets mentioned now is a weak claim for notability. I'd be willing to revisit if we had more discussion of his work, the LA Times is fine, but that's about all I can find as well. Oaktree b (talk) 14:38, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as mentioned, Cisco Pike is enough of a classic/cult classic that it has been written about consistently since its release: Variety, Film Quarterly, Film Comment, Sight and Sound, Los Angeles Times. Whatever the quality of the other films, they were "major" in the studio/stars sense, and More American Graffiti and Baby were reviewed by sources such as Variety, Oakland Post, The Globe and Mail, San Francisco Chronicle, The Boston Globe, etc. Caro7200 (talk) 15:06, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the LAT obit is for a different Norton. Caro7200 (talk) 15:15, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes, I didn't realize there were multiple LAT sources here. The one I was referring to above is "The Celluloid Time Capsule". That obit is for Norton's father who has a mostly similar name. And I've already said my piece on the #3 pass alone so I need not repeat myself. QuietHere (talk) 15:29, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 17:56, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I've looked over what's given and what is discussed above. Not the greatest, but it's just barely notable. Oaktree b (talk) 20:49, 7 March 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bill_L._Norton&oldid=1144637182"