Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Jones (writer)

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 keep'. Can always be nominated in the future if the condition of the article doesn't improve. (non-admin closure) Wikienglish123 (talk) 14:06, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Jones (writer)[edit]

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

Not a notable writer. JDDJS (talk) 20:26, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Faustus Bidgood is a notable and historically important Newfoundland film, so criterion #3 of WP:CREATIVE might apply. In addition, Jones is interviewed twice in Cinema Canada (once alone and once w/ his brother and co-collaborator Andy Jones (comedian) as seen here, for example. Michael was never a member - or core member anyway - of the CODCO comedy ensemble, so he's not as well known as Andy, to be sure. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:49, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And he was the sole writer and director of Secret Nation, which didn't get the Genie nomination for best original screenplay, as Faustus Bidgood, but apparently was screened at MoMA in NYC. I'm gonna say the combination of criterion #3 of WP:CREATIVE, the Cinema Canada interviews listed in the bibliography linked to above, just meets our basic requirements. He's the lesser known of the siblings Cathy Jones and Andy Jones (comedian) -- he isn't even linked to in their articles! -- but I say keep. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:08, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:53, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:53, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The only real issue here is that the article was created in 2005, a time when our referencing standards weren't as well-defined as they are now — so it's not that the sourceability and notability don't exist, it's just that they didn't actually have to be shown in quite the same way as they do now. But the guy was a screenwriter and director of two historically noteworthy films, and garnered a Genie Award nomination for Best Screenplay for one of them — and, in fact, while the article doesn't make this clear in its current form, he was also the same film's editor, and garnered a Genie Award nomination for Best Editing too. And a two-time nominee for a top national film award is a topic who does clear our notability rules — even just one nomination would make him an automatically-eligible topic, let alone two. The sourcing just needs to be upgraded for compliance with 2015-vintage content standards, which isn't the same thing as notability failing to exist. Keep and I'll work on updating it. Bearcat (talk) 02:50, 28 October 2015 (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.