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. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 19:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jace Richdale[edit]

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

WP:BIO, not notable Alan - talk 21:31, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - there are two decent sources, and many more can be found. His work has been cited in two reviewed books. No effort has been made to fix it first. Bearian (talk) 03:54, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources offered by User:Bearian and other available sources that speak toward the man and his career and in his meeting WP:Creative. Unless it is being argued that the Simpsons are somehow not well-known, or that they are non-notable, or that they have not "won significant critical attention", I believe many of these Simpsons-related deletion nominations of writers/producers would benefit from improvement, rather than deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:30, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Bearian. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 19:51, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bearian. Gran² 19:58, 21 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.