Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack saperstein

Jack saperstein

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

Declined speedy, but I'm pretty sure this still qualifies under A7 and G11. It's pretty much just a resume. Irbisgreif (talk) 22:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The page at hand is an encyclopedic entry about an actor. There is information about his personal life and career. Granted there is also information on the page regarding his work history in the entertainment field. This is because he is an entertainer. These accomplishments have value and help in defining and noting the actor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hangloose 42 (talk • contribs) 23:08, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Hangloose 42. If you visit ANY encyclopedic page for ANY actor, director, producer, CEO, Writer, Musician, etc. The page is naturally going to list or state the persons accomplishments aka work history. I do acknowledge what Irbisgreif is saying. There is information on this page about work history but without it an accurate depiction of Jack Saperstein isn't possible. Plus the majority of information listed on the page talks about the guys family and past and how he got started.

yours truly beekiepurple —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beekiepurple (talk • contribs) 23:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Hangloose and Beekiepurple, the problem is that the article doesn't show why he's notable - all it mentions are roles as an extra in various films and TV programmes. What is really needed is significant coverage in independent, reliable sources; note that this does not usually include mere entries in directories like the IMDB. David^(Talk) 00:03, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]