Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacques Peretti

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2015 October 6.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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. Randykitty (talk) 17:18, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jacques Peretti

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

No claim to notability. Yes there are references, but they just prove that he exists. They do not prove that he is notable. JDDJS (talk) 02:04, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:14, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Daily Mail ref is significant, but he would need more of these to be notable.New Media Theorist (talk) 02:28, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems notable to me, with 4 documentary films or series on UK national TV. Johnbod (talk) 03:26, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as there's simply no better coverage for a better article with my searches here, here, here, here and here. SwisterTwister talk 05:40, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as article creator. As per Johnbod, he seems notable to me, although I admit that it would be good if there were more references that could be used! If the consensus is to delete, please move it back to my userspace rather than deleting and I'll keep an eye out for new references that could better support notability here. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:52, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The available references don't show that this person meets the notability guidelines. Like other editors, I get a feeling that this person may be notable, but currently, through the search engines, not enough turns up to show they meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:21, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:51, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 11:26, 27 September 2015 (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.