Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan Entwistle (director)

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. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:36, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Entwistle (director)[edit]

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

Does not assert notability per WP:CREATIVE: three short films and a feature film in development; no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. There's also an evident WP:Conflict of interest on recent edits, though this in itself is not a reason for deletion. Filing Flunky (talk) 01:40, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because it's a film directed by the subject of the article above, still in development, with no indication of its notability per WP:NFILMS, and no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources.

The baby who is the subject of the film did get some national press coverage as part of a debate about bed blocking, but the article isn't about the baby, but rather about the film. Bed blocking currently redirects to a single paragraph in another article, and both the baby and this film would definitely be worth mentioning in a full article about bed blocking, but there's insufficient notability for this film for its own article. There's an evident conflict of interest in the second article too, as it was created and mostly edited by the film's director, though as above, that on its own is not a reason to delete. Filing Flunky (talk) 01:56, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Filing Flunky (talk) 01:56, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Filing Flunky (talk) 01:56, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 11:45, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in reliable, independent third-party sources. Should such sources be integrated into the article, feel free to leave a note on my talk page and I'll take another look. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:53, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both due to lack of sufficient coverage in reliable sources that would establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 23:09, 12 December 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.