Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eames: the architect and the painter

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. m.o.p 23:38, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eames: the architect and the painter

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Recent documentary film. No attempt made to show notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:27, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I wrote a short squib less than 24 hours, and have seen it PRODed twice in that time, second time by the nominator. I don't know if the number of Google hits speaks to likely notability, but I get over a million. (though I don't know how to avoid repetition.) It is possible that this article needs a better author rather than deletion. I'm not arguing for a keep, but for the subject to be considered before a decision is made to delete. Jd2718 (talk) 21:40, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Reviews in the New York Times[1], Seattle Times[2], Hollywood Reporter[3] and a gazillion other places[4][5] make this a no-brainer. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:20, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as User:Clarityfiend has easily established that this film meets notability criteria. I sympathyze with its author User:Jd2718 and suggest that in the future he consider beginning articles in a user workspace and so avoid them being negatively evaluated when in their infant stages. Had it looked as it does now I seriously doubt that User:Jsfouche or User:RHaworth would have suggested its removal. Kudos to Clarityfiend for his improvments. Well done. I suggest that now that concerns have been addressed, the nom consider a withdrawal of his nomination. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:50, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seems to meet WP:GNG as there is significant coverage in reliable sources which were not evident when the article was created (even though it may not meet WP:NFILM). I also suggest the author submit at Articles for Creation as we give feedback there before the article is posted on the mainspace and subject to deletion criteria. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 02:08, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Don't know what the article looked like when nominated, but looks solidly sourced now. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 04:59, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, since it's obviously notable, and a trout-slap for RHaworth. Before nominating an article for deletion, you're supposed to research its notability yourself, per WP:BEFORE. Doing so in this case would've saved everybody a lot of time and bother. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 21:31, 28 November 2011 (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.