Jonathan Burrows (producer): The claim appears to be substantively correct.  The only source that actually looks like a source is this about a production he was involved in, but it was a press release in what appears to be a local source, says so at the end.  I could not verify many of the claims in the article either in the sources cited or independently.  If reliable sources can be identified, I am happy to fix the article but it needs to be deleted if not.  Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:22, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Businesspeople , Theatre , California , New Jersey ,  and New York .  Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:22, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Probably delete - there seems to be a general problem verifying the facts here, but even if there wasn't the claims of notability seem thin and I'm not seeing any better refs.  JMWt ( talk ) 07:44, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: Disagree on the "self-written vanity" part.  While it was apparently written initially by a colleague, and also contributed to by Rnguyen1 who provided the photo used in the article, during my cleanup, I believe I removed anything that may have been biased.  You may elaborate on your concern of misinformation or unverified claims, and I can answer them.  Disclosure: I do not know the subject, and I only happened to undelete the page at WP:RfU .  Jay 💬 07:52, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Jay , would you agree that the restaurant, the polo and the personal life of the subject are irrelevant for encyclopedic considerations, that they may be included just because they can be but those are not by themselves knowledge worth knowing?  Would you agree that the main issue here is whether or not the subject is notable as a producer?  Would you then agree that we need a little bit of significant coverage to presume notability here, given the career happened far enough back but not too far back and in a country that generates a lot of coverage, in an industry that is, whatever the opposite of obscure is?  Assuming we broadly agree on the above, the biggest problem I see is that most of the article is based on the presumption that the one self-published profile can be taken at face value.  I simply do not think it can, especially in a BLP, especially when its accuracy has been challenged.  The next source (the one from the American Film Institute) does not have enough for us to be able to tell that it's even the same person.  We can assume they are, but it happens often enough that desparate sources we collate on lesser known individuals based only on a name search ends up creating a composite biography for a person that does not exist.  These are not sources we can base a standalone biography on.  That leaves the Los Angeles Times piece that is behind a paywall.  I do not know what it has, but I suspect it does not have much simply because other sources didn't have much and the one piece that had some content was cited seven times compared to just once for that piece.  But if I assume wrong and if it has usable WP:SIGCOV and if there is just one more source that also has SIGCOV, as I said, I would be glad to see one more well-sourced biography on a living person, especially knowing now that the subject was reportedly devastated to learn of its deletion.  The impression that there is exaggeration in the biography, I get, from among others, the fact that our article says he produced Fire! while the IBDB source says it was "Produced by David Black; Produced in association with Jonathan Burrows".  To editors who are partial to retention on the grounds that he produced Fletch , I caution that it should be determined what exactly his role was as can be verified from reliable sources.  He is not among the many people that made it into the infobox of our article on that film (in contrast again, to this article's lead's claim that he is best known for producing that film).  Generally, one film may be enough for a director or a lead actor, if the film is iconic enough, I do not think it should be for one of many producers, especially since "producer" can mean many things, not all of those imply a creative contribution.  Best, — Usedtobecool ☎️ 11:36, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'll respond to the points about "misinformation / unverified".  Which is the self-published profile referred to, is it patch.com?  You suspect that the person referred to in the American Film Institute source is a different person, and the suspicion arose because the article has been challenged.  I agree that additional sources would have helped, but many sources I went through were blogs or interviews that I could not include.  I took the Los Angeles Times ref and associated content from Fletch (film)#Development .  On producing Fire!  , I provided a source other than IBDB that said “Fire on Broadway” , which I assumed was a typo with quotes for “Fire" on Broadway . I agree in hindsight that "in association with" should have equated to "co-produced" or something of the sort. Jay 💬 13:24, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I have some experience improving articles that I decided against AFDing with what sources were there and what I could find. I would not expect to be held responsible for every little detail I miss when doing so. Indeed, that is how we are supposed to build this encyclopedia. I would have left the article entirely alone but for my misgivings about the patch.com piece. If only we could take the claims in there at face value, the worries about verification would be minor. Best, — Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:20, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I removed the line referenced from the Los Angeles Times because the article did not mention Burrows at all, much less him shopping the film around in Hollywood. Mr. Gerbear | Talk 16:38, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] OK. I have tagged a citation needed for this at the Fletch article. Jay 💬 04:58, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Also see, Talk:Jonathan Burrows (producer)#Reddit "Campaign" . Jay 💬 08:13, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I do not think it matters. They are not brigading; they seem largely in disagreement with OP, and most of them don't see anything wrong with the article. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 11:48, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , could not see significant coverage in RS. I do not know if there is coverage in older and offline books or magazines. The article had been soft deleted earlier, and the person who requested undeletion had suggested there are sources, but a lot of what I found was self-published content. Jay 💬 13:24, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , This seems like an attempt on character assassination by the person’s alleged son. Also, this article was active for quite some time and it was not a subject of debate all the time it stayed relevant. I just checked the talk page and there certainly have been a few very real participants suggesting additions to this article. Moreover, it also says that the person bought rights and produced fletch. The sources provided in the article are also verifiable, just not notable. You could argue to delete this just because it do3s not meet the notability criteria, disregarding the other information, but I think this article has its value of information, that should be preserved. I don’t see the point in deleting this article to be honest. RoundStrider ( talk ) 14:17, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , The article's subject meets notability criteria on a couple bases, it reads unbiased nowadays, and there is reasonable evidence showing long term effort toward continuous improvement on this article. Deleting the article would not be a constructive removal given the individual's contributions toward many notable works under arts and entertainment and particularly destructive considering the apparent campaign coming from outside sources/people/sites to influence its removal. Pedantical ( talk ) 15:30, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . Fails WP:PRODUCER . Criteria 1 and 2 do not apply. As for Criteria 3 and 4, Fire! was not a notable theatre production. He also did not produce Fletch; the source merely says a production company bought the rights for it and didn't even end up producing the film. IMDB says his credit on the film is "Produced by Special Arrangement," under "additional crew"; this is not notable either, particularly if it simply means that his production company allowed another to use the rights. As for the list of theatre productions, "working as a production executive" on those isn't notable. Also, everything relies on one source, and while Patch may be reliable, the article is evidently promotional in nature: [1] . The wording is identical to Mr. Burrows' bio on the promotional site for Can-Can . As for the restaurant and polo stuff, mere mentions of him in articles that aren't about him at all don't make him notable. Mr. Gerbear | Talk 16:36, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] At the bottom of the Patch page, it says the information was supplied by the press and PR department of the playhouse. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 18:49, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Just wanted to clear up a few things about the way I feel about this article. My father is a well intentioned elderly gentleman who has been retired for about twenty five years, and who is unfamiliar with how wikipedia works. He wrote his own page and I stupidly felt a bit of second hand embarrassment from the way in which it was written. Ironically, I have opened a can of worms on myself and more and more people are checking out his page. I am sure this would make my father very happy, and he is having a rather rough time now, so this has made me happy and changed my perspective on the whole matter. I believe his work attempting to get Fletch produced is notable enough. Basically all I wanted cleared up with some irrelevant details about his personal life out of an overabundant and rather neurotic desire for privacy. I would like to offer my apologies, as well as my thanks, to the diligent people of wikipedia for their work on this trivial matter, as well as for all you guys do. Basically, I just wanted to protect my poor old Pops from putting too much about himself on the internet. Zanelburrows ( talk ) 20:32, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] References ^ Everson, Emily (2014-09-21). "Papermill to Open the Season With Rousing Production of "Can-Can" " . Millburn-Short Hills, NJ Patch . Retrieved October 26, 2018 . Delete . This person was a producer on only one film (or was he?), and an "associate producer" on another, which was a flop. He produced only one Broadway show (which ran for only 6 regular performances), two off-Broadway shows, one tour of an off-Broadway show (although none of the off-Broadway credits is verified) and later one regional theatre production.  All of his other "producing" was as a "production executive".   He was not a significant creator (only ever writing one short film).  There is only one source cited for his producing, and it is from Patch.com.   His ownership of the barbecue restaurant would also be, IMO, WP:MILL .  -- Ssilvers ( talk ) 01:05, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment He is only mentioned in 2 paragraphs in the production section for the film Fletch , where it is mentioned that it was co-produced by his brother, Peter Douglas .  Abdullah raji ( talk ) 10:40, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Peter Douglas is the half-brother of Michael Douglas .  Jay 💬 11:01, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 15:36, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : There's plenty of coverage of his restaurants [20] and [21] in Gbooks, seems to be a choreographer with the same name that is discussed at length, but I'm unsure if it's even the same person [22] or this [23] ; if it is the choreographer, we're likely at GNG, if not, I'm not sure...  Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:38, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : The choreographer has his own bio here in Wiki, so it's not this person.  I just don't see enough in RS that talk about this producer person.  The restaurant bits are trivial, rest seems to be a person that worked for a long time in their field but never gained much notability (as far as wiki is concerned anyway).  Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:46, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] He's rather interesting but I don't see the sourcing to back up notability by Wikipedia standards.  I did see the quote about shopping around Fletch to movie studios in a one line mention in a Quillette article, but it's a trivial mention, and of course as an opinion site that's not a reliable source anyway.  Happy to revisit if someone finds better sourcing, but absent that I'm at Delete as failing WP:GNG and WP:PRODUCER.  Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 02:35, 6 March 2024 (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.

Discussion outcome: delete