Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Paxton

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 speedy keep. Article clearly asserts and provides sources showing notability. Current article is not a copyright violation. Non-admin closure. Jujutacular ^T · C 20:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Paxton[edit]

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

See Talk:Michael Paxton for details. In summary: 1) repost of speedy-deleted copyvio 2) limited notability other than the Academy nomination 3) there are other people named Michael Paxton just as notable PleaseStand (talk) 03:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —PleaseStand (talk) 03:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Academy nomination and the Satellite Award for Best Documentary Film are each enough to prove notability, and even if he hasn't done much lately, once notable, always notable. The existence of other people with the same name is never a reason to delete an article. We can have articles on Michael Paxton (filmmaker) and Michael Paxton (artist), and potentially some other people listed at http://www.linkedin.com/pub/dir/michael/paxton/ - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't care for his subject matter, but as an Oscar nominee, he is per se notable. Bearian (talk) 06:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The current content is not a copyvio, so it does not matter if a past version was, and the existence of other notable subjects with the same name is an argument for creating more articles, not deleting this one. "Other than the Academy nomination" is a bit of an "other than that Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play" type of argument; this is obviously the main source of his notability. One likely but unstated reason for the nomination was the presence of a {{BLP unsourced}} tag on the article (today's scarlet letter for articles), but since AFD has spurred the addition of sources, that no longer applies. --RL0919 (talk) 15:39, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Awards and nominations demonstate notability.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:39, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep as current article asserts and sources notability, its time to close this one. Perhaps the nominator might review WP:BEFORE and WP:HANDLE. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:38, 25 January 2010 (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.