Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justin Lewis (film 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. Any editor should feel free to create a Redirect from either of these deleted page titles. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:16, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Lewis (film director)[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

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

Minimally referenced WP:BLP of a filmmaker and a completely unreferenced article about his film, not properly referenced as passing notability criteria for filmmakers. As always, neither filmmakers nor their films are automatically notable just because they exist -- the notability test hinges on evidence of significance, supported by WP:GNG-worthy coverage about them in real media.
The attempted notability claim here is that he won an award for best editing at a minor film festival -- but film festival awards clinch notability by themselves only if they come from major, internationally prominent film festivals on the order of Cannes, Berlin, TIFF, Venice or Sundance whose awards get widely reported by the media as news, and not if they come from minor regional film festivals for which you have to rely on IMDB for sourcing. But IMDb (which is not a reliable or notability-making source) is the only source cited in either article at all, with absolutely no evidence of GNG-worthy coverage shown about either topic.
Nothing stated in either of these two articles is "inherently" notable enough to exempt them from having to be referenced a lot better than this. Bearcat (talk) 16:19, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 16:19, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could you help finding references instead of asking for deletion? Which are suitable reference websites for this? There are several homonyms, so looking for the proper references is difficult. Yann (talk) 19:15, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proper referencing is media coverage about him and his work in newspapers, magazines, books, film studies journals and other sources that represent a third party writing about him and his work in an analytical manner.

If you're the one who wants the article to exist, then you're the one with a responsibility to ensure that the proper references exist. You do not get to demand that other people try to find better referencing for you instead of listing it for discussion — because if better references don't exist, then what? So it's your job to ensure that you're using the proper calibre of referencing from the start, and if the proper calibre of referencing doesn't exist yet then you have to wait until it does before the article can be started. Bearcat (talk) 14:13, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat: Please do not lecture me. I know the rules very well. However I am not a specialist in cinema, I just found out that there was no article about this film maker, and seeing that he received several awards, I thought he is certainly notable enough. I am not from the US, so I don't know if these film festivals are notable and sufficient enough to establish notability. I suppose there were press reports when he received these awards, but I can't find them. There used to be a time when submitting an article was not so controversial. Yann (talk) 16:57, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I added 3 references for Justin Lewis, and 2 for Collider, thanks to Mushy Yank. Yann (talk) 11:28, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree with the bundling of this film with its director. I think two Afds and not at the same time would have been fairer but that’s just me. The director has received some awards as editor on notable films and might meet WP:CREATIVE The film has been reviewed at least here) and here So Keep.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:28, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Awards are only notable enough to make their winners notable for winning them if the award itself is a notable one — that is, an award only counts as a notability claim if you can show that the media consider that award to be significant enough to report the award presentation as news, and does not count as a notability claim if media coverage about the award doesn't exist, and instead you have to "source" the award to IMDb or the award's own self-published website about itself. An award only counts as a notability claim if you can reference it to WP:GNG-worthy media coverage to establish that the award is independently considered significant, and we do not indiscriminately accept all film awards as equal notability makers. Bearcat (talk) 15:19, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you, everyone knows that some awards are more important than other, I think, and I don't think I said the contrary (hence "might"). I never source with IMdB. Never. You're talking to the wrong person here. And, an award verified at the award entity website (Emmys, given festival, etc) is something ("self-published", no, the award cannot self-publish anything, can it? You probably mean "official"...) and counts for what it is. Coverage by other media echoing it is better, agreed, absolutely. Hence "might". But, to make things clear, I didn't !vote concerning Lewis, only his film. This kind of misunderstanding does not happen in individual Afds. Hence my disapproval of the bundling. Anyway, thank you for your message. I have no further comments. Best, -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:31, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IMdB. If that is what you mean, fair: I did cite a website on this very page, above, in my comment, where the review is either copied from IMdB, as Metropolitan90 rightly indicates below, or written by a IMdB regular (not clear, but I had missed that, apologies). -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:43, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. His only work is Collider, the article of which is unsourced. The reviews given above are self-published and otherwise not from mainstream critics. बिनोद थारू (talk) 01:38, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
and perhaps written under his auspices is in my view a very unnecessary and baseless allegation given the page history and I would appreciate if you corrected it. For the record, Collider is the only film directed by him that has a WP page, yes, but it's as editor that he received awards. Thank you. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:10, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok बिनोद थारू (talk) 02:16, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:28, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:56, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete GNG and UNRELIABLE. So many articles with Boloney sources. This is exactly why I am putting my foot down and getting involved

AaronVick (talk) 03:03, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. These articles don't have sufficient reliable, independent sources to establish that either the director or the film satisfies WP:GNG. The first review cited by Mushy Yank above is actually just a user review copied from IMDb. Of course, if the director becomes more prominent in the future, the article can be re-created as appropriate. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:54, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Film only: because there’s one reliable review at least and to help the reader, as other films with that name exist, I’d like to suggest an ATD, by redirecting to List of science fiction films of the 2010s.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:57, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. None of the reviews presented come from reliable sources. This https://www.the-other-view.com/collider.html is a blog. The other https://www.sci-fi-central.com/Database/SF/06/C0/index.php is imdb. बिनोद थारू (talk) 03:35, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also from what i understand, ATD (Alternative to deletion) is meant to treat large informative articles in danger of deletion, not a stub. बिनोद थारू (talk) 03:37, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure ATD has to do with the articles being a stub per se, rather with the fact that you can merge it or not. In the present case, you can, so it's rather in favour of a redirect, I should say: "Articles that are short and unlikely to be expanded could be merged into larger articles or lists." (WP:ATD) and "Articles that are short and unlikely to be expanded could be merged into larger articles or lists." (WP:ATD) I had already seen your comment on the sources above but thank you all the same, As for the sci-fi central, I have already mentioned it quoting IMdB or being authored by an IMdB regular, after Metropolitan 90's note (see above, our comments). And The Other View seems like an expert blog to me. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:58, 7 December 2023 (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.