The result was keep. Interesting discussion. There has been some slight misunderstanding of WP:V. Verifiability is a policy which asks that we have reliable proof for questionable material – it does not ask for evidence of notability. Verifiability in this case is met for the existence of this person, and for some of what is claimed he has done by the reliable source of the New York Times. However, there are elements of the article that are questionable, are not sourced, and so those parts of the article under WP:V should be removed (without the need to discuss the matter). An example is “he developed the digital animation style that was used for the series Stickin' Around”. As verifiability has been met, the question is now if this topic / person meets our notability guidelines. There has been some discussion on which notability guideline has most authority. The guidelines are there to give guidance – they are the summary of consensus reached in previous discussions. The more precise a guideline, the more helpful it is. The GNG is a general guideline which covers most notability discussions. However, WP:BIO (and its sub-section WP:ENT) is a more precise guideline for topics such as this – therefore it is generally seen that where we have a precise guideline, we use that one. It’s not a question of authority or usurping, it is simply a question of using the most appropriate guideline. In this and the previous AfD people felt that WP:BIO had been met through the person having met WP:CREATIVE 3 by directing Little Rosie. It is a shame that the article on Little Rosie doesn’t assert or prove notability, but notability is assumed as we have an article on it, and a Google search throws up information. As this person meets our topic specific notability guidelines it should be kept – but the article does need trimming of all unsourced claims under WP:V. SilkTork * YES! 13:57, 10 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Unnotable person. Fails WP:N and WP:BIO and without significant coverage, can not properly meet WP:BLP. The only news coverage found mentioning this person was for a lacrosse coach, and not this Hudecki, which is particularly telling that a local coach got more press than this person. Prod removed by User:T. Anthony without explanation. Previous AfD closed after several folks said his directing a series made him notable, however, per actual guidelines it does not, and without actual significant coverage of Hudecki himself, per Wikipedia's guidelines regarding living people, his article can have almost no actual content or claims, so deletion is the better option. -- Collectonian ( talk · contribs) 18:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC) reply