Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Duane A. Sikes

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. per his request, the article has been userfied back to its author for continued work. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:45, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Duane A. Sikes[edit]

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

Appears to have been declined at AfC but moved to mainspace anyway by the author. No in-depth WP:IRS cited and I can't see any available online. Only mentioned briefly in the cites news articles. All his films seems to be non-notable too, while the ones that do have a Wiki page don't mention Sikes. Fails WP:GNG. Sionk (talk) 22:21, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - The article was resubmitted to AfC with significant updates, no response in days. I reviewed several other producer pages. Compared to those, this page was more sufficient to be created than most I reviewed. The notable films mention him on the IMDB, something that he could not fake. This article is a work in progress, like many on Wikipedia. I moved it to the project space for the sole purpose of opening it for others who may want to add to it as well. This article is not going to be created and abandoned. I will be expanding this article extensively for the reason that I am trying to start my first page after doing many edits on an unregistered account and learn the ropes. I have learned tons in this process, but see entirely too many pages in worse condition than this that have been active for years to honestly consider this article not fit for the project space. Please consider removing this from AfD as this page will be updated constantly, and the sources provided prove that he is notable enough to be written about. --EngelsBlut (talk) 23:30, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Have listed your comment as an argument for "Keep". If that is not accurate, please feel free to amend. Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 02:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Author (EngelsBlut) has requested below to ignore their 'Keep' vote and requests an opportunity to 'Userfy'. 'Keep' vote struck out accordingly. They're welcome to amend this if not correct. Sionk (talk) 13:18, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - The sources provided in the article could not really be considered "significant coverage" of the subject. The first is a promo page for one of the works for which he was Executive Producer. There's no real way it could be considered independent of the subject. The second only mentions him once in passing. There's not real way it could be considered "coverage" of the subject. The third isn't really focussed on the subject but does give some explanation for his involvement. It could possibly be considered "marginal" coverage of the subject; certainly not "significant". I understand the author is working on the article and there is an element of Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built involved. Perhaps the author could start by listing the reliable, independent sources on which he/she plans to build a future article. If none exist, then I struggle to see how an article on this subject will ever meet WP:GNG. Stalwart111 (talk) 02:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stalwart, I appreciate your constructive criticism. I respect your veteran status on Wikipedia, and value your opinion. While, I agree that this article would be much better with more sources, I still do not see how the material given cannot be trusted given the sources. If the bio is in question, I can remove it until I find a source that you consider more reliable, though the source given is not a personal site, and appears to be something done by the production company. If notability is a concern, I can provide proof many of the movies that are listed via the actual movie websites. I did not list every website as I felt that notability was not an issue per AfC. I am a bit disappointed in the way this article was tagged so quickly with many accusatory statements. Like I said above, I am interested in this community and felt that this person was notable enough to write about, while being a challenge to do so. I compared my article to at least 10 others of its same genre and found my article to be sourced better than 95% of them, yet those seemed to have had no tags despite being sourced solely with IMDB references. I have a feeling that this article was originally tagged for deletion hastily. Sionk makes the case that few of his movies are notable, and those that are, do not have him listed on their respective Wikipedia page. I have two problems with that, one is the notability portion. They make an assumption that only a few of his movies are notable based on if they have a Wikipedia page or not. Per policy, Wikipedia pages are not to be used as sources for an article, likewise, I believe they should not be able to be used as a source to establish notability of another article. The second problem I have is the portion about how the movies that are notable do not have him listed on their Wikipedia page. That is not a valid argument because Sikes has no control over who made the Wikipedia page for his movies and erroneously did not add his name to the credits. To me, as a first time article creator with no COI, I am taken aback at the scrutiny this article is taking despite my innocence. I honestly believe that Mr. Sikes is notable enough to be on Wikipedia given his ever growing list of movies, many of which being in film festivals. What is notable to one person, may not be notable to another, I understand this. I just have a strong belief in this article with the best intentions. Remove this page if that is what has to happen, but having dove in head first into the policies and procedures of Wikipedia, I still hold fast that this article meets at least the very minimum criteria and deserves a chance in the project space to be expanded by myself, and others. The preceding paragraph was written with a civil mindset and is not to be taken offensively by anyone. Thank you for your time and consideration.--EngelsBlut (talk) 11:13, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note I said all of his films seem to be non-notable. To be honest, if Sikes had been given glowing credit for his contribution to several non-notable films, that may still make him notable, in my opinion. The facts seem to be he has been given little credit for any of his contributions. Considering his entire oeuvre has been in the last five years, it is likely any coverage would be available online if it existed. By all means add some reliable in-depth coverage about Sikes and the problem will be solved. Sionk (talk) 11:56, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a tough one. I can see Stalwart's point, but based on a review of the article and the links I have to say that this article does indeed meet WP:GNG. A history of the page shows that a member of AfC upon declining the article for a source violation stated that this person is notable, but needed more sources. I come to this conclusion because of the nature of the article and the author's statement that they will be improving it in the near future. There are many articles that bring this same argument to the table, but I believe this one meets Wikipedia's requirements.--Riverrunner123 (talk) 03:03, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And I should say - my position is "Weak" for a reason - if the original author can provide more "building block" references then I'll be in the "Keep" camp. If not, then I remain in favour of deletion. My concern is that while the editor might still be working on the article, the standard burden of proof still applies and I would have thought more references to support the material in the article would have been provided already, had they existed. Stalwart111 (talk) 05:28, 14 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Well obviously the same would apply with me, if anyone can find reliable sources about Sikes I'd withdraw my nomination. But I can't see any additional online sources. I'd be interested to know from Riverrunner which sources they've found.

Of the two local news sources in the article, one doesn't mention Sikes at all, while the other only has one brief mention. Sionk (talk) 11:33, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Both mention Sikes. Take another look, his name is on the second page. I know you don't believe in the sources that I have, but I truly do. How is Design specification able to be in a state of needing improvement with no sources, yet, this page is not going to have the opportunity to be expanded by the community? Sionk, please work with me here. This is not an ego issue for me, I promise. I really would like to see this article grow with the input of others besides myself, hence I made this page on Wikipedia and not a website. I can provide many more sources, but none that you would find reliable, so I did not provide them out of courtesy to the policies of Wikipedia. There are many pages similar to John Mazzello which are un-sourced and comprise of one IMDB link, and yet I am struggling to keep this article alive with actual sources and full intentions of expanding it as Sikes career progresses. Please reconsider and give this article a chance. Thank you for your time and consideration.--EngelsBlut (talk) 11:57, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but this is getting a bit silly - if you say yourself there are no other reliable sources about Sikes, then he clearly doesn't pass Wikipedia's basic notability requirements. According to the IMDb he has only been the actual producer on two short films. Sionk (talk) 12:15, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree with you. I believe the work that he has done meets Wikipedia's basic notability requirements. I believe the sources that I have at the very least qualify the article to be in a state of needing improvement. You just used an unreliable source in attempt to debate me. I digress. This is silly. Never will I understand how the articles I listed above are somehow more believable than mine when they have no sources. I do appreciate your concern to watch out for Wikipedia's interests, but I truly believe this page is being over-scrutinized and there are many pages in a horrid condition that could benefit from our attention than this one.--EngelsBlut (talk) 12:24, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think part of the problem might be that none of the sources cited so far could be considered adequate, either individually or together. Passing mentions in two news articles focussed on other things really can't be considered "significant coverage" which is what is required by WP:GNG. The other "source" really can't be considered independent. Even if the site is run by the production company (rather than by him personally), he is still one of the producers. The site is designed to promote the film he produced and would be financed by the producers (him). That's way too close to be considered independent. So if you removed the sources which are either not significant coverage or are not independent, we're left with no sources at all. That's basically what Sionk and I are saying - more sources are needed before the article could be considered to meet WP:GNG. You might think he meets WP:GNG but this has to be verified, just like everything else. As an aside, it's worth having a read of WP:OTHERSTUFF. If other articles don't meet guidelines then you should feel free to nominate them too - that's what this process is designed for. Everyone is happy to allow articles to be worked on but a good understanding of the burden of proof is important. There's no point keeping an article if it is never going to make the grade. If you think it might one day but doesn't yet, it might be a case of WP:TOOSOON, and that's fine. Maybe ask for the article to be userfied (put on a sub-page of your user-page) so you can continue to work on it. But unless you can provide further reliable and independent sources that give the subject himself "significant coverage", then you perhaps need to look at other options for developing the article. Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 13:00, 14 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Stalwart, thank you for the well-written and constructive response; we could all learn something from how you are handling this situation. I have read all linked policies and am in full agreement with you. I would like to claim WP:TOOSOON and request that this article be userfied while Sikes career progresses and I diligently work on its sourcing. Thank you for your time and explanation of the matters at hand. You are why I don't give up on Wikipedia.--EngelsBlut (talk) 20:56, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy Please disregard my keep. Per discussion with Stalwart, I would like to request that this page be userfied so that I can continue working on it in the future. Thank you.--EngelsBlut (talk) 21:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Once the article is deleted proper, you can use up to 3 months or so to develop a userfied version into a Wikipedia article. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 01:12, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done - article has been userfied and is now available for development at User:EngelsBlut/Duane A. Sikes. I will post a note on your talkpage for easier reference. Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 01:06, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The only references I found, Times-News. August 1, 2012 and The Citizen-Times July 23, 2012, are in the article and do not provide enought reliable source material from which to write a Wikipedia biography on the Duane A. Sikes topic as required by WP:GNG. Now, if you are desiring to write an article on chimney sweep Duane Sikes[1] or robber Duane Sikes,[2] there's plenty of write up for a Wikipedia article on those different guys. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 01:12, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Move to close - original author has requested userfication as per above discussion and this has been done. Can we now close this AfD to allow the article to be deleted? Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 00:58, 17 September 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.