Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tony Radevski (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 delete. After a month on AfD, this article about a living person still references no reliable sources about them. WP:V and WP:BLP therefore mandate the article's deletion. Sandstein 08:20, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Radevski[edit]

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

fails WP:BIO. possible WP:AUTOBIO. created by a single purpose editor (possibly himself). there is no widespread recognition of this person in coverage. coverage merely confirms he is a director google news and trove. LibStar (talk) 01:14, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Gongshow ^Talk 04:18, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Gongshow ^Talk 04:18, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 03:42, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:57, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep "Possibly a WP:AUTOBIO" does not mean it is one... and while COI is always a concern, it is not a strong deletion rationale for notable topics (see Jimmy Wales), and even if it were a COI (not established)... the author has not touched the article for nearly two years. The 2009 nominator returning it again to AFD is fine so that we can revisit the issues of November 2009 and see how this person's career may have progressed in the interim. However, being "just a director" can be notable enough if works or director are covered reliable soucres. We do not expect nor demand that a person notable to Australia be notable world-wide, nor do we demand that their career grows, nor that they stay in the news if they had enough coverage in the past. Conversely, having enough coverage in reliable sources IS a valid reason to "weak keep"... but yes, the article needs work. Okay. Being improvable, even if not done, does not automaticaly equate to deletion. So... what do we have that could assist in improvements some time in the future? Sidney Morning Herald speaks toward the filmmaker or his works in a more-than-trivial fashion. So does The Age and The New York Sun The filmmaker being an editor at Trove means little, as we do not delete Roger Ebert simply because he authors works in places other than Wikipedia. The University of Notre Dame Australia offers some background.[1] Culture Unplugged offers more.[2] His films have screened internationally. Anyone check for coverage of them? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:06, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 13:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment, Sorry for the third relist, and I'd normally not do it, but between the two AfDs we have a grand total of three editors participating. I'm hoping the additional time might draw more eyes. BusterD (talk) 13:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP: GNG as it is unsourced. Electric Catfish 18:59, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you meant that it fails WP:V? WP:N says about five times that notability is a function of the topic, not the article. For example WP:NRVE states, "The absence of citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that the subject is not notable." Unscintillating (talk) 00:40, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Both delete !votes have IMO been shown to have no weight, but I suggest that the closer consider WP:V and WP:OR in the closing. Both are reasons under our WP:Deletion policy to delete an article. Unscintillating (talk) 00:59, 24 July 2012 (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.