Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nick Basile

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. Nominator withdrew his nomination (non-admin closure) Yellow Dingo (talk) 10:02, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Basile[edit]

The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.

Quatticapic (talk · contribs) This user has declared a connection.

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

This page has not demonstrated proper notability, in addition to having no third-party references, with the only citations being home pages for projects the individual has been involved with. DARTHBOTTO_talk•cont 11:24, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I noticed the page creator has been adding advertising materials, such as links and minor awards, to Alexandra Breckenridge, Whitney Able and Joe Dante. Maybe a thorough read of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion would be useful. DARTHBOTTO_talk•cont 11:46, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DARTHBOTTO_talk•cont 02:42, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. DARTHBOTTO_talk•cont 02:42, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's nothing convincing for the applicable notability and my searches have found only a few links with none of them being convincing for Wikipedia. SwisterTwister talk 06:13, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do NOT Delete as I have added more third party references and sources to validate the notability of this article including citations from The Hollywood Reporter, Variety, Fangoria, Screen Media Films and Deadline.com. Quatticapic talk 19:08, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All those references are about the film Dark, but there's nothing in them that lends to notable credibility for the subject matter of the filmmaker himself. If anything, they lend to the credibility of the film Dark, meaning that they should have been applied to your draft for the film that wasn't approved. Also, there's beyond a reasonable doubt that you yourself are Nick Basile, as quite literally all your edits have been for advertising. Please familiarize yourself with the conflict of interest guidelines. DARTHBOTTO_talk•cont 23:23, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All the references I submitted are valid and article submissions factual. What would you suggest would further validate this article's notability? Please advise. Thanks. Quatticapic talk 23:31, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They are indeed factual and notable, which lends credence to the subject matter of Dark, but there really isn't anything in them that enforces that Nick Basile himself is worthy of inclusion, as they're comprehensively about the project. I'd recommend another shot at a draft for Dark and make the references in-line, rather than what you have on this page. There's a chance Dark could in fact have a shot at inclusion, but I can't endorse the subject matter of the filmmaker himself. But, if you are in fact Nick Basile, this may be out of your hands, as Wikipedia COI policy states that the subject matter themselves, nor those personally connected, may contribute to associated pages. DARTHBOTTO_talk•cont 23:38, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm not trying to bully or beat your up or anything; I just am following the rules. I know a number of individuals who are behind great projects on Wikipedia who have asked me for help with certain information, but I can't really throw them a bone, as I myself have a COI. We could look at Dark again, as perhaps your formatting and COI put you in a bad position for having it approved, but maybe I could see what I can do for it. DARTHBOTTO_talk•cont 23:42, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: I would greatly appreciate that DarthBotto. Thank you.Quatticapic talk 20:27, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're most welcome. In the meantime, remember that any articles connected to you, whether they're projects or collaborators, you cannot get involved with the content of the pages. For example, if we find that there is a page for Dark and you see content that disagrees with your perspective, you are recommended to go to either the associated talk page, or the WikiProject Film's talk page and state your connection with said page and suggest changes. But you're welcome to stay active with Wikipedia and encouraged to edit anything else. ;) DARTHBOTTO_talk•cont 00:56, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Directing one significant film may no be notability , but directing several of them is. It seems from the sources that "Dark" is notable, tho it does not yet have an article,and a n earlier film won an award. Filmmakers become notable for producing notable films. DGG ( talk ) 04:06, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd argue that Dark could have potential for a Wikipedia article, so long as it is not written by Nick Basile/Quatticapic, but that example for a previous award doesn't exactly hold water, considering it was a single minor award for a short film. DARTHBOTTO_talk•cont 23:06, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination: I've actually decided that DGG's logic is sound and I'd like to withdraw my nomination. With the sources available, I can probably rewrite the article into something noteworthy. DARTHBOTTO_talk•cont 10:15, 1 June 2016 (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.