Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark N. Hopkins

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 no consensus. Kurykh (talk) 05:02, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mark N. Hopkins[edit]

Mark N. Hopkins (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)

Minor filmmaker, with a biography filled with thinly sourced puffery. Calton | Talk 10:53, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep / Do Not Delete - Hopkins directed and produced the following documentary which now links back to this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_in_Emergency Furthermore, the film has more than one page on the Doctors Without Borders site. This is one of them: http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/living-emergency/ The reason that was given for the last deletion proposal ("PROD") is the following: "Minor filmmaker, with a biography filled with thinly sourced puffery." -- which is highly subjective, at best. I see that it's been repeated, above, I dare say the world might be a better place if we had more "minor filmmakers" like Mark Hopkins -- and "more…puffery" of the sort displayed on Hopkins' page. Someone needs to go on record as objecting to this "request for deletion" that -- quite frankly -- defies logic, IMVHO. (Wikipedia page for Hopkins' film: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_in_Emergency This is how this "minor filmmaker"'s film was received: "Rotten Tomatoes, a review aggregator, reports that 93% of 26 surveyed critics gave the film a positive review; the average rating was 7.2/10. The site's consensus reads: "An unflinching, inspiring look at amazing bravery and commitment, Living in Emergency disappoints only in leaving the viewer wanting more."[5] Metacritic rated it 76/100 based on fifteen reviews.[6] Ronnie Scheib of Variety wrote that the film captures the subjects "with rare candor and a refreshing lack of piety".[7] Sheri Linden of The Hollywood Reporter called it an "unforgettable chronicle" that "is a bracing blast of reality".[8] A. O. Scott of The New York Times wrote, "[T]he film, just like any good hospital television series, is really about the curious psychology of the medical profession."[9] -- from the film's Wikipedia page ]] Elizabeth Blandra (talk) 20:25, 5 February 2017 (UTC) Elizabeth Blandra (talk) 19:02, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the article about the film, re: WP:ONEEVENT. The film is notable, but that notability isn't inherited. Exemplo347 (talk) 21:11, 7 February 2017 (UTC) Struck my !vote[reply]

  • Speedy Delete To fix this blatant hijack - how was this missed? See this diff here - an existing redirect was hijacked by PollHarrisBask to create this article. Exemplo347 (talk) 21:18, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:31, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: @Exemplo347: The redirect was created by the same user and it was an obvious mistake. Actually, I think he only created the above article to fix his error. --King Rk (talk) 07:23, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Three years later? Exemplo347 (talk) 07:47, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: @King Rk: You wrote: "...it was an obvious mistake." Or, perhaps, it was a happy accident : )… I'd like to hear it from him -- PollHarrisBask -- though…because it would appear that he may have updated the content after creating the page, though I'll have to look more closely. Cheers. Elizabeth Blandra (talk) 18:27, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I came to this page -- not as an editor -- but as someone who had recently seen "Living in Emergency". I wanted to know more about those involved in making the film and was quite happy to find the Hopkins' page, only to discover -- much to my surprise -- that it had been proposed for deletion (using the "PROD" option). I made some mods to what I think is a perfectly fine biography, deleted the "deletion" info, and hoped that would be the end of it. But here we are again. So while I focused on Hopkins' later film (above), he also produced or co-produced "Going Upriver" with George Butler (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Butler_(filmmaker)). That folks seem so eager to dump this page is ill-advised/ill-considered -- IMVHO. And I dare say that there are others who might take issue with the following: "The film is notable, but that notability isn't inherited." (I'll have to get back to this; I'm not done here, but I don't know how much time I have to make a case…and it seems like few people are weighing in… I hope some others will take a look and comment.) Elizabeth Blandra (talk) 18:17, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There are valid reasons to keep this page, IMO. 1) A number of different pages link to Hopkins' page: Poverty in Africa, Doctors Without Borders, Living in Emergency, Going Upriver, and several others. WP:MANYLINKS 2) Hopkins has been the central filmmaker/producer in two notable documentary films: Living in Emergency and Going Upriver WP: 1E+. He has been involved in the making of several other well-known films, such as A Civil Action, The Truman Show, Angela's Ashes, Shaft, and Wonder Boys, among others. WP: MULT. 3) There are other sources and short films to be considered and worked into the body of the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mark_N._Hopkins These include newer short documentaries -- one of which has been used by the World Bank with regard to addressing poverty in Africa ("An Africa That Can Feed Africa"). Elizabeth Blandra (talk) 23:09, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Several independent WP:RS citations give him more than passing mention; including one in the New York Times. Narky Blert (talk) 13:43, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I located four sources via Google. The first is an interview with Documentary.org; typically I think we use some caution with interviews as its direct from the subject. Next, the NYT feature is pretty lengthy, but is mostly about the film rather than the man (though he does get a few paragraphs of backstory near the end of the feature). Finally, I found a blog post on HuffPo, but it's by Hopkins himself, so we can't consider that a WP:RS. Fourth and final source located is another interview with Hopkins by NPR. I'm on the fence about using interviews to determine notability, so I'm not putting in a !vote, but I thought I'd leave those here for others to evaluate. Ultimately I think we may be looking at a case where the doc is notable but its maker isn't. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:34, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Regarding: "Ultimately I think we may be looking at a case where the doc is notable but its maker isn't." With all due respect, how is that even possible??? Elizabeth Blandra (talk) 05:44, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:GNG, notability is determined by the existence of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". If third-party coverage concerns the film rather than the filmmaker, it's perfectly possible for the film to be notable per our standards while the filmmaker is not. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:02, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 12:50, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:30, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - While the documentary might have marginal notability (not saying it does, as I didn't research it), this filmmaker does not have enough in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources to pass WP:GNG, and he certainly doesn't pass WP:FILMMAKER. Onel5969 TT me 00:02, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep = appears to meet WP:CREATIVE. Bearian (talk) 04:48, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — notability only inherited from film. This interview source, cited in the article, is good and all, but most everything else is just about the work. As far as "numerous awards," it received only one: from a relatively hole-in-the-wall organization. Either way, that's the film, not the person. --slakr\ talk / 02:08, 28 February 2017 (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/Mark_N._Hopkins&oldid=1186986081"