Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Owain Astles

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. Kurykh (talk) 20:40, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Owain Astles[edit]

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

Subject of article is only notable for one event - a Kickstarter campaign to fund a film. There is no Substantial Coverage in Reliable Sources that is not about this non-notable event. Exemplo347 (talk) 16:38, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

More evidence about notable events, specifically the founding of a production company and the creation of short film, has been added. Notable evidence has been added to support this, including an article from a reputable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Popattack (talk • contribs) 18:58, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Creating a short film doesn't make a person notable - people do that every day - and the same goes for founding a company. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with strict notability criteria. Exemplo347 (talk) 19:20, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The last comment seems true, and creation of short film/company is not particularly notable. However, it seems the subject is notable for more than the Kickstarter campaign, based on evidence in article. Particularly social work and list of influential persons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thepumpkinking (talk • contribs) 04:08, 9 January 2017 (UTC) — Thepumpkinking (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Please can you provide links to other independent articles that demonstrate notability for anything other than the Kickstarter campaign and the related film? Exemplo347 (talk) 09:19, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These are already in the article; the following two links: http://www.rifemagazine.co.uk/2016/12/24-most-influential-bristolians-under-24-the-2016-list/ http://www.devon-cornwall-film.co.uk/2015/10/24/challenging-ordinary-owain-astles-aims-shine-light-real-stories-real-people-real-issues/

These all point to the same things - the Kickstarter campaign and the film. Exemplo347 (talk) 23:00, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't true; the first link does mention the film, however given the content of the rest of the article, it seems as though notability is for a range of work, as opposed to just the single film. The second link doesn't in fact mention the Kickstarter campaign or the film at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanjuniperobeach (talk • contribs) 03:26, 14 January 2017 (UTC) — Sanjuniperobeach (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Exemplo347 (talk) 08:39, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:16, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It doesn't matter how many accounts you create to comment here - in fact, it's undermining your point. Exemplo347 (talk) 09:29, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct that I'm under different accounts, however I promise you, it was not to deceive anyone! I forget the login for thepumpkinking, and it seemed quicker to create a new account. An oversight on my part perhaps, but again, I assure you it was with no ill intentions. The point, however, does remain that the subject appears to be notable for their film career and activist work, and not just for the aforementioned Kickstarter campaign. Sanjuniperobeach (talk) 23:25, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And you forgot the login for Popattack too? Exemplo347 (talk) 10:06, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:59, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Per WP:CREATIVE, a person may be notable if he or she "has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work [...], such work must have been the primary subject of [...] multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Exemplo347, WP:CREATIVE only requires one single work and multiple reports on that single work for a subject to qualify on our notability guidelines. Why do you think this person doesn't qualify on CREATIVE? I would be interested in hearing your viewpoint. Thanks. Lourdes 17:25, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Lourdes: That's an easy one. The references that specifically mention the film (there are no reviews) in any detail are not independent of the subject of this article. I don't need to give a longer answer than this because it's really that simple. Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 17:30, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Exemplo347 for the reply. How are Bristol Post and Exeter Express not independent of the subject? Lourdes 18:19, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Those articles are about the Kickstarter campaign itself, not the resultant creative work. Exemplo347 (talk) 18:28, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there's no indication in any Reliable Source that says filming has even started, so the "resultant creative work" may not even exist. Exemplo347 (talk) 19:40, 25 January 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Delete Point well analysed by Exemplo. Disregarding the spammy votes above, this Afd can be closed as a delete. Lourdes 02:27, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request Closure Closure is now 3 days overdue. Exemplo347 (talk) 00:16, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the sources here are so clear-cut: there is some degree of local and grander coverage for the director, though the point remains that it's for more the film. True, the film does not appear to have entered production, but the director can technically have significant coverage without it. In any event, if this article is recreated in the future, I suggest that it be about the film rather than the director (as the director is not known outside of the planned film) czar 06:20, 27 January 2017 (UTC) Close reverted per talk page request czar 10:27, 3 February 2017 (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.