Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Burleigh Smith

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 delete. Both "keep" opinions are by SPAs. Sandstein 15:29, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Burleigh Smith

[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Burleigh Smith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional autobiography of non notable director. Subject is the director of and actor in some short films. Two have been part of Tropfest but that does not satisfy WP:NFILM. Some have shown at a lot of festivals but that is just an indication of how much time and money he has invested in submitting his film and is not an indication of notability. There is a lot of quotes from reviews (the first one is faked) but most are from non reliable sources. There is a few reliable sources in there but they are capsule reviews, nothing extensive. He has won or been nominated for some awards but none are major awards. Article is bombarded with a lot of sources but for the most part they are primary, press releases, listings, passing mentions or non reliable. The only two reasonable ones are from indiscriminate industry publications. A search found nothing better. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:37, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 13:00, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 13:00, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 13:00, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. In addition to simply not being notable, the entry is patently suspicious: originally created by a user of the same name as the subject; multiple edits by IP address accounts, each of whom are essentially WP:SPA promoting the subject; the nature of the defensive arguments in the edit wars. This is a clearly well curated page by the subject. Wikipedia is not LinkedIn. Cabrils (talk) 06:55, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this page. This director has made a significant contribution to the film industry with the exposure of his work to a global audience. A quick search of the Academy Awards Library in Los Angeles shows there are seven of his published screenplays in their catalogue. This goes a long way for credibility. Smith's short films have screened at hundreds of film festivals around the world. Details of some of these screenings are listed here and here. The director is a three-time finalist at Tropfest, reportedly the world's largest short film festival. His films have also screened at Academy Award-accredited festivals, festivals that have been running for decades and festivals that have patrons that include Clint Eastwood, Mike Leigh and the late Robin Williams. These festivals are highly competitive and select only a fraction of submissions to screen, another indication of the director's worthiness for inclusion on Wikipedia. There is no evidence these films have been submitted by the director himself, not that this should be an issue. There is no evidence of any significant money spent on submission to festivals, as reputable directors with strong festival track records often have their films invited to screen, with entry fees waived. There is no evidence this page is an autobiography. The user who has nominated this page for deletion was recently unsuccessful in deleting all of the pages for this director's films and this new nomination is a continuation of that failed campaign. This user was also unsuccessful in having my account blocked. This user refuses to be specific with his criticism. This includes the refusal to state which review he thinks is fake and why. While Facebook is an unacceptable reference for Wikipedia, it is interesting to note the David Stratton quote can also be found as a book inscription here. There are clearly a significant number of valid links to reputable sources on this Wikipedia page, including The Sydney Morning Herald, the National Library of Australia, Screen Australia, ScreenWest, ABC Television, Tropfest, Empire magazine, Filmink magazine, among others. Granted, the page could do with some updating and re-writing in places. But I strongly suspect this nomination for deletion has little to do with the worthiness of the subject. Those voting here must take this into account. BenjaminHomerBoyd (talk) 14:48, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I won't waste my time addressing most ot the irrelevant adhoms and claims of notability by association above but I will touch on some of the points raised
"There are clearly a significant number of valid links to reputable sources on this Wikipedia page, including The Sydney Morning Herald, the National Library of Australia ...." Um, no there is not. It's best to read things before commenting. You were probably thinking of articles like this. Merely contains his name in a list. Whilst it does verify something it contains no depth of coverage so does not contribute to satisfying GNG. It's not about bombarding us with sheer numbers, it's about the quality of coverage in independent reliable sources.
"This includes the refusal to state which review he thinks is fake and why." I have clearly identified which quote (not review) is faked. Once again it helps to read things.
"There is no evidence of any significant money spent on submission to festivals". Once again try reading things, such as the Filmink source you trumpet above. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:43, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:24, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, proliferation of sources are without exception unreliable, primary, or trivial mentions. Article subject is explicitly quoted in Filmink source as having spent a lot of money on submission fees. Article orginally created by User:Burleighsmith and subsequently expanded by IPs, strong indication of WP:AUTOBIO. Keep arguments are a litany of WP:ATA:
    • His films have been shown at lots of WP:FARAWAY festivals!
    • Some of those festivals have been attended by Clint Eastwood and Robin Williams!! (possibly the most tenuous application of WP:INHERIT I have ever seen)
    • AFD for one of his films failed to reach consensus! (tenuous application of WP:LASTTIME)
    • I WP:LIKE his work!
    • This is WP:VALUABLE!
Seriously, just delete. Yeti Hunter (talk) 01:22, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
BenBoyd above has helpfully pointed out that the David Stratton "quote", presently displayed prominently in the article's lead, is referenced to the article subject's facebook page, showing a picture of a book signed by Stratton with an encouraging note to the article subject. <<facepalm emoji>> Yeti Hunter (talk) 05:19, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: You can't assure me that a director whose films have screened at hundreds of competitive festivals worldwide and whose published screenplays are available in libraries worldwide is not worthy of a page on Wikipedia! By this measure, at least a good third of all filmmakers on Wikipedia should have their pages deleted. Further, a patron of a film festival is someone who funds, endorses and curates the festival, not just someone in attendance!! Please make a better effort. BenjaminHomerBoyd (talk) 12:09, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Add WP:BIG, WP:ALLORNOTHING and WP:ADHOM to the list. It doesn't matter how many festivals his work has been in; merely appearing in a film festival does not confer notability. Winning a major award is generally taking an indicator for notability (per WP:NFILM), but the only awards Smith's films have recieved are at minor or non-notable festivals (Katoomba, Woods Hole, Angry Film Festival). The West Australian Screen Awards is probably the most notable of the awards won, but the WASA are certainly not a "major award" as contemplated at NFILM. There simply isnt sufficient depth of independent coverage required to establish notability. For this reason neither Smith nor his work satisfy WP:DIRECTOR or WP:NFILM. Yeti Hunter (talk) 00:48, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the Margaret Herrick Library is not a "national film register", and is not of itself an indicator of notability. Yeti Hunter (talk) 00:52, 22 April 2019 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Burleigh_Smith&oldid=893942122"