Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shawn Welling (2nd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 no consensus. No consensus to delete at this time (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:38, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn Welling[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Shawn Welling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completing process for 89.252.128.80, nomination is as follows:

  1. Fails WP:FILMMAKER
  2. All of the sources come from publications based in Fort Bend County, TX which shows that Welling is not notable enough across the U.S. or even across his home state to warrant having an article.
  3. All the other reasons listed in the warning banners on the main article page.

I have no opinion. Hut 8.5 20:46, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 18:09, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 18:09, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 18:09, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 18:09, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean up. I note this was speedy renominated based upon lack of involvement by others in the AFD which closed on May 23, 2012. Why not relist again? However, I also note that Shawn Welling is a multi-award-winning [1] filmmaker, who has received recognition and coverage in multiple reliable sources,[2] much of which is not simply "local" Texas coverage.[3] We do not expect world-wide notability, and despite the current article needing work, it is improvable and WP:BIO is met. Less relevent, the IP 89.252.128.80 has been editing only since June 4, 2012,[4] making (so-far) 17 lifetime edits. If not simply a regular editor who forgot to sign in for a couple weeks, and if not aware when he began nominating articles for deletion, I'm sure he will quickly learn of WP:BEFORE, WP:UGLY, and WP:NRVE. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:48, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Let's start disectting things.
1) "Multi-award-winning" He has only won his local film festival and it is a very minor one. Almost every major city has one and if it is not one of the biggies (Sundance, Toronto, SXSW), so it means nothing.
2) Local sources. Everything is local sources except for one mention, Business Wire There are no other non-local sources in MQSs Google or IMDb links. The c-47 is a local entertainment magazine of which there is no way to see past articles online.
3) "Significant coverage". Per GNG, not only there has to be multiple reliable sources, but they have to offer significant coverage. Significant coverage is required, not just a brief sentence or two. Film reviews, listing of who won, dance concert announcements are deemed trivial. Of the coverage mentioned in the article, MQS' IMDb and Google links that are not reviews, listings who won and talk more than two sentences about Welling are Baylor University's student paper Lariat and Fort Bend County, Texas local magazine Focus on Women. Only one offers significant coverage and it is Focus on Women.
So what do we have. Only one local source offering any significant coverage, thus fails GNG. Hasn't won any major awards and only does independent films that hasn't been recognized outside of Texas, thus fails WP:FILMMAKER. Bgwhite (talk) 06:11, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • He easily passes WP:BIO, WP:ANYBIO, WP:FILMMAKER, and WP:GNG. You are in error to respond as if "substantial" or "in-depth" means the same thing as significant. "Significant" requires simply that reliable sources address a topic directly and in detail, rather than trivially, and THOSE we have. And it is nowhere mandated that the topic being sourced Must be the sole fous of such coverage... And even though you do not seem to think that WorldFest is "biggie" festival simply because it is held in Houston, Texas... rather tan just of local import, it is an international festival with entries from around the world... and is itself historical and quite notable. Winning at such a festival may not be as earth-shaking as an Oscar or an Emmy, but multiple wins over multiple years[5] at a notable film festival does indeed meet the instructions of WP:ANYBIO. And your dismissing the major newspapers of Texas such as Houston Chronicle or Houston Press as if they were local neighborhood gazettes is not per policy nor guideline. It is expected that a notable Texas topic would be covered in Texas media... and having more-than-trivial persistant coverage is what WP:GNGs all about. Shoot Magazine is not "Texas-only" news... nor is Biz journal... and his works have even received attention from CNN's film critic. Your contention here seems to be that things that happen in Texas could not possibly be notable unless covered in London or Paris. That opinion is not per policy nor guideline. Wikipedia is not elitist and is not about only world-reknown topics. We do not ignore or dismiss topics determinable as notable to Texas and beyond simply because they are covered IN Texas. To WAX just a teeny bit, we have plenty of wonderful articles herein about things and events and persons notable to Texas, sourced to Texas media. But in returning to the topic at hand, we have plenty of reliable sources to support and verify a decently encyclopedic article... even if this person does his notable work IN Texas: Fort Bend Star+[6]+[7] Houston Press+[8]+[9] Houston Chronicle+[10]+[11]+[12] Style Magazine Business Wire NPPA Focus on Women and others. And beyond his easily meeting WP:ANYBIO, his works House of Dreams, 360 Days of Bolivar, Project Aether, The Legend of DarkHorse County, and AXI: Avengers of Xtreme Illusions have him meet WP:CREATIVE even if these are film topics simply waiting for articles to be written. WP:NRVE... whether Texas or world-wide. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 09:25, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Festivals Worldfest is not a big festival because it is held in Houston. Sundance is held in small town Park City. SXSW is held in Austin, a much smaller city in Houston. Size does not matter. There are over 150 film festivals in the US.
Out of town refs: Shoot Magazine's article is about the film festival. The sum mention of Welling is "Houston's own Shawn Welling with his encore screening of "The Messenger - 360 Days of Bolivar." and "...and finale by Shawn Welling's dynamic Planet Funk Academy's premiere dancers" Not exactly significant. Biz journal never mentions Welling. Again, there is not exactly any out of town refs about Welling.
Local coverage: Starting from your list "notable work IN Texas: Fort Bend Star"... Fort Bend Star ref is a film review. #6 is a film review. #7 is a film review. Houston Chronicle is a film review. #8 is three sentences long. #9 is a film review. Houston Chronicle is a dance review about the dance company. #11 is the same article as Houston Chronicle. #11 is about the dance company. #12 is announcing a dance performance. Style Magazine statement about welling are "...an encore screening of Shawn Welling’s PROJECT AETHER a three time winner at the Awards Gala", "...one of which was the Shawn Welling’s third film PROJECT AETHER" and "...a grand finale by Shawn Welling’s Planet Funk Academy’s lead dancers". Business Wire quotes Welling and doesn't go into detail about him. NPP is a photo.
Significant coverage Film/dance reviews and film/dance announcements fall under trivial coverage. A photo is not significant coverage. A few statements about Welling is not significant coverage. A few quotes about Welling is not significant coverage. Bgwhite (talk) 18:58, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes... a film festival's notability is dependent upon its coverage, not its location. Sundance is notable despite its location. SXSW is notable despite its location, just as WorldFest is notable despite its location. And please... there are far more than 150 film festivals in various cities accross the US... and yes, not all are notable. You need not agree, but the 51-year-old WorldFest is indeed notable... through coverage.
The sources you "examined" in order to dismiss Welling as a topic, perform either the required verifiability of aspects of Welling's career, or source notability of his projects under WP:FILMMAKER. Please understand that verifiability does not itself need be sigcov, nor do all sources have to be solely about Welling. Offered above we have some shorter sources quite suitable for verifiability and some longer ones suitable under WP:SIGCOV. Taken altogether, the genral notability guide for Welling, as a topic, is met. And to repeat again, WP:V and WP:SIGCOV are NOT the same thing.
And please... films being determinable as notable through their awards or reviews IS exactly as expected by guideline. The related in-depth commentary and analysis of his works as offered by film reviews is NOT all trivial coverage.
Lastly, those sources offering in-depth commentary and analysis of his award-winning and widely hearalded dance company (NOT yet a claim of notability), perform the policy mandated verifibility of his owning the company, and do so in a more than trivial manner, even if his owning and being choreographer and instructor of the company is seen by you as a "trivial" job. Others reading the in-depth coverage of his dance company or dance reviews might argure that it is NOT simply trivial coverage.
I never heard of this fellow before this second and speedy renominated AFD. Sure, it would have been nice had more folks spoken up at the AFD two weeks ago, or that the article issues were subsequently allowed to be adressed over time and through regular editing rather than rushing it back to AFD when requesting a relisting would have served just fine. I have no animus against nor favoritism toward Texas-related topics. So being un-biased in either direction, I do see though that taken all together, the requisites set for this topic by WP:ANYBIO, WP:CREATIVE, WP:GNG and WP:BLP have been met. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:04, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Festivals You said "And even though you do not seem to think that WorldFest is "biggie" festival simply because it is held in Houston, Texas" Which implies location was important. Please don't argue one point and dismiss it later. There are over 150 film festivals in the US listed on Wikipedia. Not every film festival that has a page is notable enough to where your film wins a prize, you become notable. Because one is older does not make it notable. Where does it say this one is more notable than the 150+ other festivals?
Festival awards Every film entered at WorldFest won an Award. Winning an award is not special. In 2008, (2009 and above are in excel) there were 10 Remi Awards given, roughly 100 Special Jury , ~300 Platinum , ~300 Gold and ~300 silver awards. Hey winning a gold award means over 400 were ahead of you. Winning an award at a non-notable festival in which everybody wins an award doesn't make one pass nobility guidelines.
So you are arguing that winning at a festival which hands out an award for every film makes every film at the festival notable and also makes every filmmaker at the festival notable?
Dance company No where does it say it is an award-winning and widely heralded dance company Google News comes up with three hits. Regular google search comes up with alot of YouTube videos and other stuff. The "dance company" invites everybody 7-up to take classes. Sorry, they haven't performed any shows since atleast 2009. Their website (hosted at web.mac.com) on the shows hasn't been updated since 2010. The last entry on the "press site" was last updated in 2009.
So we have a filmmaker that has no significant coverage. No coverage outside Texas. Won awards at a film festival that hands out an award to everybody. A dance company that has no refs that it is award-winning or widely heralded that hasn't put on a show since atleast 2009. Bgwhite (talk) 05:44, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep: User:MichaelQSchmidt makes a compelling case that the subject passes based on notability. Wish that it were in the article, but will settle for knowing they do exist. --LauraHale (talk) 04:18, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Which part is compelling? Bgwhite (talk) 05:45, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unsure, I don't often disagree with MQS, but this is an exception. I don't see the HP award for best local film maker as significant, and I the Fort Bend Star just has mentions his name as The Legend of Dark Horse County was being filmed in Fort Bend at the time (again, not significant in my eyes). --kelapstick(bainuu) 06:31, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is proper to write of an established filmmaker's projects in a BLP of that individual. The current article is not at all reflective of its potential for improvement. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 15:14, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Absolutely Michael, and one of the things that I admire about you is your ability to turn a rubbish article into something that works here, and I am more than willing to have my mind changed at the majority of deletion debates that I take part in. I agree that the projects should be included in a BLP, I just don't know if the coverage of him to be enough for him to pass the GNG. Looking back into the article now this article is interesting (not the part about the filmmaker), world renowned dance instructor? And the "go-to guy for performers for the NFL, Cirque de Soleil and Broadway". And this as well, although I don't know where Focus On Women sits in the RS category, but it appears to me he is more noted as a dance instructor, rather than a film maker (something I must have missed originally). As such, I am striking my delete vote and changing it to unsure before I have a chance to look a little closer.--kelapstick(bainuu) 02:00, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Be sure as you are reading that fowmag link that you recognize it is the cover editor letter which is discussing the article written by Nick Nicholson on page 22 of that same source, which is linked here [13]. Note the discussion below about the COI between Nicholson and Welling please. So the Focus on Women sources are really selfpubs by the associate producer of one of his movies. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 02:19, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the discussion below, I acknowledge that coverage by Nicholson after 2010 is suspect even with his being an established industry expert. His coverage before he had verifiable COI is not. Reasoning expanded below. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:03, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - On the links provided by MQS I am a bit confused as to the interpretation of them. For "multi-award winning" and "multiple reliable sources" MQS links to IMDB - a user generated content site (aka a non-reliable source). Considering that Shawn Welling and associated articles have been a target of a large promotional sock puppet Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Shawnwelling/Archive, I have every reason to believe that the same sock puppet has stuffed IMDB's database with similar "award winning" content from what appears to be a festival that gives hundreds of non-notable awards. MQS then provides a link to a google search to show non-local coverage at [14] which when I click on it turns up coverage in Houston of this Shawn Welling and some random non-related Shawn Wellings in obits out of Texas, etc. The only non-local coverage that seems to have been discussed is Business Wire, a PR release service which just published a press release - clearly not a reliable source to establish notability. The link to the NPAA is a photo of him with his pet parrot and the focus of it is the parrot. If we look at the other sources carefully a large percentage of them all rely on the same local author, Nick Nicholson - who it appears is affiliated with Welling. I recognize MQS and LauraHale both agree there is a "compelling case" to establish notability, and I am open to hearing it. Could either of you (or someone else) provide such a case with some specific citations - because they still don't seem to have been presented? ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 13:53, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • IMDB is not "user-generated". While anyone may sumbit changes to IMDB, it is their paid staffers who evaluate them, vett them for accuracy, and either act on them or not. IMDB is not considered a reliable source, but does offer decent clues to what searches might discover elsewhere IN reliable sources which CAN be used if found. No more. No less. And differently than in an encyclopdia anyone can edit, puppets cannot "stuff" IMDB... only paid IMDB staffers can approve or disapprove contributions there. I offered a shotgun of results to indicate my belief that issuues were addressable by means other than flat-out deletion. I do understand that your efforts in reducing the promotional aspect of the original article resulted in a far smaller and far less suitibly sourced one being sent to AFD, and am currently involved in addressing those issues in a manner differently than did you. Patience please. My efforts will be apparent in a few hours, will not contain the promotonal aspects you properly removed, and will contain proper sourcing of assertions. And I trust that when made available here, you might reconsider your stance. As for journalist Nick Nicholson... he does seem willing to report on Welling, but I see no evidence of any personal affiliation between he and the subject beyond them both being Houston residents. Being a journalist in Houston would seem to qualify him as being able to write about Houston-related topics. And as for the "puppets"... seems to have been one clue-lacking newb who created additional accounts and these have been dealt with. No longer an issue. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 15:09, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Thank you for your thoughtful reply. Actually Nick Nicholson is listed as an Associate producer of Welling's film: [15] shows, "Welling Films would like to thank the following...Director: Shawn Welling Associate Producer: Dominique Gonzales, Nick Nicholson..." So I would dismiss any publicity generated by an associate producer as it not being an independent reliable source. I note that according to this publicity photo on Welling's site [16] that Nick Nicholson is also the president of the Houston Film Critics association, so that anything associated with that association is also non-independent - such as awards from the Worldfest (even though it is unclear those awards are even notable). I do look forward to any proper independent reliable sourcing that truly establishes notability for Welling that you turn up and look forward to seeing the proper non-promotional independent sources you have promised. You will note I have not yet !voted on this AfD to give time and see what you come up with. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 16:17, 14 June 2012 (UTC) P.S. The association between the awards and the associate producer giving the awards is made even clearer here: [17] where it states, "Accepting the "Gold Remi" from WorldFest founder Hunter Todd. Shawn Welling and his cast (L-R) John Star, Niece Waidhofer, Scott Budge, Hanna Jones (Americas Next Top Model cycle 16), Marissa Lee, Katrina Hansen, Joy Willard and Shawn Welling. Less than a Half hour later Joy Willard receives best actress and Welling Receives best World Premeir awarded by the film critics choice award president Nick Nicholson for "Project Aether"." ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 16:19, 14 June 2012 (UTC) P.P.S. The non-RS IMDB also lists Nick Nicholson as the associate producer of Project Aether (Welling's film) here [18]. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 16:22, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow. Thanks for those. And here I thought the name "Nick Nicholson" was not unique and could belong to more than one person. It does seem to be stretching credulity to think that there might be more than one Nick Nicholson reporting about activities in Houston. So shame shame shame on a film critic from Houston actually involving himself in any part of Houston's filmmaking industry, small as that industry is. Does he not know that he is unable to be unbiased about film if he becomes part of the process itself?? And if associate producer Nick Nicholson is indeed the same person as CNN journalist Nick Nicholson and Fort Bend Star journalist Nick Nicholson, as seems likley, I would wonder about those two organizations allowing one of their otherwise neutral employees to write about a topic to which he has a too-close connection. We might even consider re-evaluating their stances as "reliable sources", as it is well known that a journalist must maintain absolute neutrality and never write about things of which they have an opinion, affiliation, personal knowledge, or conflict of interest. Or is that just Wikipedia contributors? Sometimes it seems the real world does not run itself by the rules set up here. So thank goodness the puppet master has been blocked. Regardless... if anything written by that journalist is supported by sources apart from that journalist, we still have notability, and can take the writings of journalist Nicholson with a grain of salt. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:48, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do feel confident after digging further and seeing portraits of the man, that ator/film producer Nick W. Nicholson [19] is the same person as the Nick Nicholson who is president of the volunteer Houston Film Critics Society [20]. Does he not know that actors and producers cannot possibly offer knowledge about films with which they are associated? Or did he recuse himself from voting when his society made its award? Wait a second... He was writing about films long before his actually involving himself in acting and producing, and before his 2011 involvement with Welling (a man who had two award-winning films in 2006 and 2009 - before Nicholson lost impartiality by becoming became producer of later ones)... and though this can bite, if suported by non-Nicholson sources, per WP:SPS, his opinions might be considered reliable as "produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications"... so he could be considered expert enough on earlier Welling projects to offer opinions. Still though... grain of salt. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:33, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay. The Nicholsons found by ConcernedVancouverite are all the same fellow: A member of the Broadcast Film Critics Association, "Nick Nicholson is the Film and Television Entertainment Critic for ABC and CNN Radio, the Fort Bend Star, Focus Magazine, Pearland Focus as well as Focus on Women. He is the co-founder of the Houston Film Critics Society and is currently the President of the organization."[21] We now have the issue of an established expert in the field writing about certain projects with which he has become too personally involved. Expert, yes. Reputation for truth and accuracy when writing for media employers who exercize editorial oversite, likely. But grain of salt, none-the-less. I think if we have something simply factual in nature, we can accept it as neutral reporting. If we have instances of critical review from before he became associated with Welling, also acceptable. But if we have instances where he offered critical opinion of those later projects with which he is himself too-closely associated, nope. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:49, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am going offer here that 51-year-old WorldFest awards (although there is a natural involvement by the 5-year-old Houston Film Critics Society), are not Nicholson awards. The Gulf Coast Film & Video Festival awards are not Nicholson awards. The Critics Choice Awards are not Nicholson awards. The Houston Press awards are not Nicholson awards. They were arrived at by means requiring the input of many. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:19, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Thank you for all of the additional research, MQS. On Nicholson I think it would be fair to say that the relationship (and COI) likely started long before the movie came out. Movies generally require a long time to raise funding and make it to market. So there is a VERY high chance they have known each other and had an affiliation for many years before the movie came out. I would say it calls into question any opinions/awards coming out of him within at least 5 years prior, if not more, for conflict of interest reasons. That said, if there is significant reliable source coverage from independent sources it is still possible that Welling is notable. But the bulk of the current notability claim relies on a strong conflict of interest which makes it questionable. I view anything coming out of Nicholson as a WP:SELFPUB in terms of Welling and affiliated projects/companies/movies/etc. as Nicholson has a direct financial interest in Welling's success. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 22:33, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As any Houston native, Nicholson may well have been aware of Welling as a chroeographer, and 'Planet Funk' and its award winning dance teams, long before Welling got into films. As a film critic, Nicholsen would certainly have been aware of Wellings 2006 and 2009 award-winning films. As a film critic expected to have such early knowledege and reporting it does not mean such is COI. It is also to be understood that Nicholson did not act as producer on ANY film until 2011. A film critic being aware of Wellings earlier works (as might anyone from Houston) does not become a COI until we can actually document a COI connection. We do not judge until we know... and THAT does not happen until Project Aether (2011).[22] We might reasonably presuppse that talks to bring him aboard in the capacity of asssociate producer could have been done sometime in 2010, creating a COI from that point in time, but we cannot simply presume that a COI existed 5 years before it did... because as a film critic and journalist, he had valid journalistic reasons to be aware or ALL filmmakers in his area of reporting. Grain of salt and a watch eye, yes... but pre-COI reporting by an established industry expert is acceptable. It may well be that Nicholson's being impressed as a critic with Welling's early work could have been the impetus that caused him to become so involved. Again, the 51-year-old WorldFest awards (although there is a natural involvement by the 5-year-old Houston Film Critics Society), are not Nicholson awards. The Gulf Coast Film & Video Festival awards are not Nicholson awards. The Critics Choice Awards are not Nicholson awards. The Houston Press awards are not Nicholson awards. They were arrived at by means requiring the input of many and, even if made, Nicholson's hypothetical sole vote would have been but one of many. Take a gander over at my sandbox. Still needing much cleanup, re-wrting, and sourcing, and NOT YET READY, I have been trying to see what I can do to address spoken concerns while this AFD continues. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:59, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As said above, everyone who enters WorldFest gets an award. Gulf Coast Film & Video Festival, held in Kemah Texas, is not even near notable. Doesn't matter who handed them out as they are all worthless except WorldFest's Remi award. Remi award goes to the actual winners of that festival. Bgwhite (talk) 06:29, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well... among his many WorldFest wins, Welling just recently won a 2012 Gold Remi. As for the rest of your statement, not true... as most films selected and shown at WorldFest do not win awards. You might perhaps be thinking of the Telly Awards or the far less reputable New York International Independent Film and Video Festival... festivals where nearly 95% of those shown receive some sort of prize. I did not make any claim that the Gulf Coast Film & Video Festival was majorly "notable"... though they are notable enough for a Wikipedia article, and we have fairly tough standards. My point is that winning in a festival notable enough for us is an indicator that such films could likely have the requisite coverage under WP:NF to allow the filmmaker consideration under WP:FILMMAKER. But another facet I am considering is Welling's stronger sourcability as a world-class choreographer, and his dance teams receiving recognition world-wide. That would meet another facet of WP:CREATIVE, with Welling's filmwork... though related... being subsidary to his choreography. Something more upon which to mull. What we need do here, is look at the forest as a whole and not argue over an ocasional stunted tree within that forest, to then determine if a person's overall career and accomplishements are just enough "worthy of note" to be included herein. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 08:49, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Read what I said previously, "Every film entered at WorldFest won an Award. Winning an award is not special. In 2008, (2009 and above are in excel) there were 10 Remi Awards given, roughly 100 Special Jury , ~300 Platinum , ~300 Gold and ~300 silver awards. Hey winning a gold award means over 400 were ahead of you." Also Gulf Coast Film & Video Festival has an article because it has been in the press a few times. This is not tough standards. Over 150 film festivals in the US have article and very few are notable. You claimed winning an award at the festival was notable. Bgwhite (talk) 09:07, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What I read is your statements "every film won an award" and "they are all worthless except WorldFest's Remi award". How many were entered? Being one of 300 among 30,000 means something. Being one of 300 out of 300 does not.
Does not winning an award (even if not an Academy Award presented by Academy mebers to self-congratulate other fellow Academy members) allow us to even consider that a film or person might have enough related coverage due to resulting media commentary and analysis DUE to receiving that award to meet the criteria set at WP:GNG?
And how did you determine that if 10 or 100 or 1000 notable Remis were given, that he must have 9 or 99 or 999 ahead of him and somehow must be last in line?
Any festival's inclusion within Wikipedia is dependent upon more than just being "in the press a few times." Having requisite coverage for over 51 years makes WorldFest unique in both its background and history.
150 festivals have articles? I daresay there are probably thousands that do not... per our community standards. Or are you questioning the basic premise or meaning or intent behind WP:N?
WP:ANYBIO states: "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times." Sure, they are not the Academy Awards, but you seem to be asserting that the various awards given at WorldFest are not well-known, and that they are not to be considered a significant enough award or honor. Signifcant to whom? You? Me? Some guy in Mozambique? "Significance" is determined by coverage, not by personal opinion. WorldFest and its awards ARE "known" and "significant enough" per our standards... even if one choses only to sneer at them.
I am not saying he is the most notable person receiving awards at the most notable film festival ever. I AM saying he won known awards at a known festival. What seems forgotten here is that Wikipedia is not about only the MOST notable people ever (it'd be a far smaller encyclopedia), but that it is about those people who can be determined through their overall career and accomplishements and coverage (even if coverage for some things stopped in 2009) as just enough "worthy of note" to be included herein. The means we DO have articles on 150 festivals when only 10 or so might be the "most" notable ever... and this means we can include articles on choreographers or filmmakers who are not the most notable ever, so long as they are just notable enough. Interesting situation here though. Places everything about editors trying to build a comprehensive encyclopdia at risk. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 10:18, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think you need to take a rest as you are starting to get too emotional. Bringing up Academy Awards... we know that any film festival is in a different league as the Oscars. I've already stated how many Remis are given. The refs I gave state it too. Instead of biting back, please look at what I've said and the refs I pointed out. We all know we can't use Wikipedia as a ref. We know there are events that have Wikipedia pages that don't bring about nobility... winning certain tennis tournaments, tack & field tournaments, book awards, etc. In a day or two, please do what ConcernedVancouverite asked, please bring independent, reliable refs. I'm not going to say anymore either until the 17th. Bgwhite (talk) 20:09, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Biting? No biting here... nor baiting. Simply an apparently failed attempt to explain that "notable" is decided here per policy and guideline, and not by a personal opinion of what is notable. When you repeatedly stated that the WorldFest, found notable per Wikipedia standards, was not notable enough per other WIkipedia standard WP:ANYBIO or WP:CREATIVE, I brought up a comparison toward the fact that not everything is "super" notable, but can be notable enough. We are not about including only the most notable. Simple. Any response to the other questions I posed above toward your processes can wait until you return.Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:28, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - There is a long thread upstream, so I thought it may be useful to summarize the key points to see where we stand and hopefully reach some consensus. It appears that the primary claims for notability for Welling are his "award winning" movies and his "world-class" choreography. To evaluate the awards there is a debate as to if the awards are actually notable awards. People seem to take two views of the notability of the awards. One line is arguing that it is a notable festival, so the award is notable. The other argues that regardless of the notability of the festival, there are too many awards for a single award to be notable from that festival. This is a fairly easy point to resolve. If the fact that Welling got the award is actually notable, then there should be reliable independent coverage of such award. If we can turn that up the point will be resolved. To this point several of us have been looking (and it appears quite hard), yet have not found independent reliable source coverage of him receiving any awards. Let's find those instead of debating it in theory. Regarding his "world-class" choreography, let's use the same test. Let's find independent reliable source coverage discussing him (not discussing the troupe he started, as that would be excellent material for an article about the troupe, but not about him as notability is not inherited). The material that has turned up so far about his choreography has been mostly non-independent selfpubs - be it links to his own website, or links to businesswire that display a press release he issued. Let's focus on finding a few sources instead of just theorizing. If we can find good independent reliable source coverage of him, then he will pass the notability test. If not, then it really appears it is a case of WP:TOOSOON. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 13:41, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - After several editors (including me) searching hard to try to find the independent reliable source coverage to address the two potential sources of notability mentioned in the comment above, it appears there are simply not enough significant reliable source coverage sources to establish notability of either the awards (which appear to be among several hundred given at that festival), or the "world-class" nature of his choreography. As such, this appears to be WP:TOOSOON, and hence my !vote for delete. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 13:18, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - He has received some local recognition, but I do not see the coverage needed to put this pver the notability bar. -- Whpq (talk) 14:57, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This looks like it an article that should be included in Wikipedia about an interesting person. The information is accurate. So why delete it? OracleB (talk) 12:00, 21 June 2012 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Shawn_Welling_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1080261521"