Deletion of Jory Prum

Comment: Jory's shameless and ought-to-know better  and my walls-of-text above are almost certainly counter-productive, but if |pornstars get to keep their articles based upon winning significant industry awards, then I don't see why he can't under the same criteria
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (WP:COI||WP:PORNBIO||WP:spam)

Comment: Fails the |notability criterion. A subject must meet the notability requirement of significant coverage in independent reliable sources, or he/she/it cannot have an article here. This is an international encyclopedia and it has to have standards for inclusion. The sources passionately touted above by the author-and-subject of this article do not meet the criteria of independence and reliability. Wikis, Facebook, IMDb and similar sites are neither reliable nor independent. Sergecross finds some of the references to be acceptable, and I respect his opinion, but I am less impressed by the reliability of the sources. As Jory mentioned above, "Audio engineering and dialogue production is an invisible art." Yes, it is. Invisible professions usually do not receive the required coverage. That does not mean they get to ignore or bypass the notability requirement; it means they don't get an article. BTW I trust the closing administrator will ignore all the sockpuppet or meatpuppet "keep" votes here from single purpose accounts
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: Can anyone supply more sources that cover the subject, Jory Porum, in significant detail? Outside of the Polygon source, every single one I've decided to spot-check from the article either mentioned him very briefly in passing, or not at all. It needs to discuss ''him'' in |''significant detail'' for him to meet Wikipedia's standards for having an article.. Without providing more actual proof, all these editors coming out to say it's "a well sourced article" are going to be ignored, because it's a baseless claim. You need to prove what you're actually saying
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: leaning weakest of all keeps) - This is a tough one. On one hand, there may be enough coverage to get by . On the other, what purpose does  serve (and it's quite clear wording) if it has no practical implications (i.e. )? {{ping|Jory}} {{tq|Audio engineering and dialogue production is an invisible art, which means that direct mention within news media is extremely rare.}} - Wikipedia is not here to right great wrongs or to provide a venue to celebrate those professions which go under-recognized elsewhere. In fact, one of the common criticisms of Wikipedia is that when it operates according to its own rules, as a tertiary source, it reinforces the status quo (i.e. covers things already well covered). I'd also add that nothing is more effective at pushing the experienced Wikipedian crowd towards delete like a horde of single-purpose accounts !voting keep. --&mdash
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO||WP:COS||WP:TNT)

Comment: per some of the sources Jory has provided and per Sergecross73's analysis of them which I largely agree with. Jory should brush up on  paying specific attention to SELF. There is no good reason that Jory's edits should represent https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-articleinfo/index.php?article=Jory_Prum&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia 73% of the content and 97% of the total edits. I also trust that the closing admin will ignore the blatant meatpuppetry
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (WP:COI||WP:COISELF)

Comment: to Grim Fandango. I look to . While Prum has coverage in somewhat of a niche field, I see the sources discussed with Serge above and they don't speak of him in such a way to fulfill Creative #1, 2, 3, or 4, which puts us back at the |general notability guideline, where there is coverage that isn't quite |significant. Again, what is the subject known for? Is his oeuvre cited for its monumentality? The sources do not say yes. Additionally, the article is overrun with details that do not descend from secondary sources as something of a |hat rack. I would be happy to reconsider this stance if given more dedicated (and reliable) sourcing. This discussion is no doubt exacerbated by the author's inability to Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass|distance himself from the article. Wikipedia and AfD carries along just fine without any of us, and things move smoother when those overly involved can distance themselves. After deletion, I recommend a redirect to ''Grim Fandango'', Prum's most notable work. With his knowledge of and competency with Wikipedia, I hope the author sticks around  to edit |unrelated articles. czar&nbsp
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CREATIVE||WP:GNG||WP:SIGCOV||WP:HATRACK||WP:VG||WP:COI)

Comment: to Grim Fandango as the subject is not notable enough to have its own article under . Lacks any verifiable sources needed to properly cite a BLP. '''Aerospeed
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)