Deletion of Michael Balazo

Comment: While he does have a Canadian Screen Award nomination for television writing, and thus would be eligible to have an article if it were |properly sourced, clearing a notability criterion in theory does ''not'' constitute a free ''exemption'' from actually having to have any reliable source coverage about him. For one thing, he received the nomination as one member of a 14-person writing team, not as an individual in his own right — and for another, the problem with Canadian Screen Awards is that ever since the Genie-Gemini merger exploded the number of CSA categories into the hundreds, media ''don't'' publish the ''complete'' list of nominees anymore but just selectively report the most high-profile categories. So we have to rely on the Academy's own website to get a CSA article finished — but we still get blocked because the Academy has either discontinued or technically forked up (I'm not sure which) its historical database of past winners and nominees, so at the moment even the nomination itself can't actually be sourced anywhere but the show's own self-published press release tooting its own horn. (Which is why the category article's missing: it's not that it isn't a notable category ''in theory'', it's that we can't find the proper sources in ''fact'' to actually build an article about it ''with''.) And that's exactly ''why'' a CSA nomination, in one of the less important categories, is ''not'' an inclusion freebie that exempts a person from actually having to have any sources at all
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)