Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Stedman (2nd nomination)

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. New sources seem to demonstrate notability. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:12, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Stedman

BLP article created by a COI account. Other articles the person created have no been deleted, but unfortunately the first time this was up for deletion a non-admin took it upon himself to close it as "keep" despite the lack of any real standards and poor arguments for inclusion (one of the keeps included the phrase "I see no information that makes him worty of a Wikipedia article" -- so how is that a keep?). Primary claims to fame are having created a nonnotable publication and website, and a short indie film. The only possible argument for notability is that this 6 minute art film was awarded one of a group of LGBT awards at a Berlin festival handed out by a jury separate from the Berlin festival, but as notability is not inherited it's at best an argument for an article on the short film and not this person -- but with the sheer number of such minor awards handed out at various film festivals every year, this just seems impractical an not truly notable anyway. It just seems odd that we have already decided that everything this person did isn't notable enough for mention here yet the article on the self-promoting individual is still around for no good reason. DreamGuy (talk) 16:15, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If and when he gains greater reknown, sure, he or anyone can create an article, but right now, looking at what is linked to, i dont think he meets WP notability guidelines.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Minor awards don't sway me from non-notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Withdrawn Stedman's credits of producing, directing, and writing are on extremely low budget films with no recognizable actors with credits established on IMDB or any other entertainment supported source. Furthermore, siting his own website without additional third party reliable sources do not support the guidelines of WP:BIO or WP:GNG. BioDetective2508 (talk) 19:51, 29 June 2009

I'm on the fence. I've reviewed the clean-up, etc and think there are substantial sources; however, my only concern is that all the projects he has done are extremely minor and they have no notability. 50/50 Keep/Delete. BioDetective2508 (talk) 00:38, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep to the now improved article. A bit of a pity that the article has not been adequately sourced in the 10 days since its last AfD 'keep', but it just goes to show that guideline is 100% right in not demanding some rush for speedy improvement. The man is an award-winning filmaker, the youngest ever invited to the Berlin International Film Festival, and has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I do wish to apologize to the nominator for some of the WP:V sources i had to add. One of the many "fact" tags he added was on a statement that Stedman's film Celebration has been to 100s of film festivals. I stopped adding WP:V of this after I got to 20 and simply edited the claim to state "numerous". If that sourced fact can be accpeted with the proffered proofs, we might then remove some 10 of them to avoid a linkfarm and agree not to re-tag the word "numerous" with a fact-tag. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article appears to meet notability and verifiability guidelines. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 12:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article is about someone is notable. A quick Google search will provide you with a wide range of sources about his career. I'm skeptical of your COI (conflict of interest) claim. Swampyank (talk) 13:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I find myself also skeptical about this unfounded accusation of COI, as the author has not contributed to the article for over three years... while many other editors have. What seems more troubling is it being sent again to AfD just 10 days after consensus decided that this person was indeed notable. If one disagrees with the oucome of an AfD discussion, a discussion with the closer is what is instructed... and if that were unsuccessful, going to DRV is the policy instructed next step. Perhaps the nom might withdraw and take his concerns inre the previous close to the closer or to DRV? It would certainly be unfortunate if repeated nomination in a quest for a different outcome were to be seen by anyone as shopping, disruption, point, or game. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable director with coverage in reputable newspapers. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:18, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If the nom found fault with the previous close why not reverse it? Or take it to DRV? It looks like an appropriate close to me. Taking an article back to AfD this quickly seems highly inappropriate, especially as those commenting previously wern't notified. I would call for a trouting, but I rather enjoy trout and would hate to reward this behavior. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:39, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw my previous recommendation (delete), no recommendationThis article now gets into gray areas that i dont feel qualified to comment on. yes, lots of media coverage, but mostly for a 4 minute movie. i dont feel ready to decide notability on such an article, but i wont contest whatever decision is made. at least its referenced now.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:04, 2 July 2009 (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.