Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Temple Mathews
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 delete. Cirt (talk) 04:11, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Temple Mathews[edit]
- Temple Mathews (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Animated film/TV writer. Has writing credit on a dozen or so films and series, but nobody has written about him, so no WP:GNG, and his work isn't significant enough to qualify for WP:CREATIVE. Article also suffers from apparent WP:COI/WP:AUTO issues. gnfnrf (talk) 00:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - besides the WP:COI and WP:AUTO issues, there appears to be a serious lack of sources. What little I could find are mere crew mentions or empty bios... - Adolphus79 (talk) 00:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I found a reference for the guy right away, listing all the things he has worked on. And look at how much money his movies have made! That certainly is notable. Dream Focus (talk) 01:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment What is the reference? If it is substantive coverage from a reliable source, maybe I should withdraw the nomination. However, if it is just a list of credits, such as his IMDB page, I don't think that qualifies under WP:N. gnfnrf (talk) 01:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment IMDb is not a reliable source, since anyone can edit it... Also, how much money the films made, has nothing to do with his notability... - Adolphus79 (talk) 01:31, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A writer is automatically considered notable if their book or film is successful. And his films doing that well at the box office, makes them notable, and thus whoever created them notable as well.Dream Focus (talk) 01:41, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Is that from a policy or guideline? Because what I'm going on here is WP:CREATIVE, a guideline that doesn't say that at all. gnfnrf (talk) 04:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If you are going by that, then how do you interpret this: "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." He was part of the creation of a feature-length film, which received multiple independent periodical articles and reviews. Those movies are mentioned in all the major news outlets. I vote keep, because by that clear rule, he is notable. Dream Focus (talk) 12:15, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I interpret that statement as having two clauses. First, the work must be significant or well known, and second, the work must have been the subject of a book or multiple articles. Nothing written by Temple Mathews meets both criteria. Only Return to Neverland unambiguously meets the second criteria (though The Little Mermaid II makes a good case), and neither of those, in my opinion, are "significant or well known". gnfnrf (talk) 14:53, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You do not consider either move well known? If millions of people have seen a movie at a theater, wouldn't that qualify it as well known, thus meeting the criteria? Return to Neverland made $74,904,590. How much does a movie ticket sell for? Millions of people saw it. Dream Focus (talk) 15:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I think "well known" is asking for a higher standard than "moderately successful at the box office". For context, Return to Neverland was the 52nd highest grossing film of 2002. Obviously, you interpret the guidelines differently than me, and that's OK. Let's leave it at that, and see what the consensus is on this particular case of applying this guideline. gnfnrf (talk) 18:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You do not consider either move well known? If millions of people have seen a movie at a theater, wouldn't that qualify it as well known, thus meeting the criteria? Return to Neverland made $74,904,590. How much does a movie ticket sell for? Millions of people saw it. Dream Focus (talk) 15:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I am leaning towards agreement with gnfnrf here. He has written (or co-written, etc.) two significant or well-known works, but neither of those two items seem to have been the primary subject of an independant book, film, or multiple articles or reviews. With a lack of sources for information, his being notable or not "because of his work" is not the only issue at hand. The article also fails verifiability and COI concerns. As I stated in my original !vote, what little information I could find on this person seems to be simple listings of his name among cast & crew, no biographical information. The biographical information that is currently included in the article has all been added (and the article created) by the subject himself (which means it fails WP:AUTO). - Adolphus79 (talk) 15:48, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I interpret that statement as having two clauses. First, the work must be significant or well known, and second, the work must have been the subject of a book or multiple articles. Nothing written by Temple Mathews meets both criteria. Only Return to Neverland unambiguously meets the second criteria (though The Little Mermaid II makes a good case), and neither of those, in my opinion, are "significant or well known". gnfnrf (talk) 14:53, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If you are going by that, then how do you interpret this: "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." He was part of the creation of a feature-length film, which received multiple independent periodical articles and reviews. Those movies are mentioned in all the major news outlets. I vote keep, because by that clear rule, he is notable. Dream Focus (talk) 12:15, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Is that from a policy or guideline? Because what I'm going on here is WP:CREATIVE, a guideline that doesn't say that at all. gnfnrf (talk) 04:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A writer is automatically considered notable if their book or film is successful. And his films doing that well at the box office, makes them notable, and thus whoever created them notable as well.Dream Focus (talk) 01:41, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Notability not established. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:18, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete (unless sources confirming the importance of his role as a screenwriter are found). It is important to note that WP:CREATIVE is a secondary criteria which does not necessarily confer notability but might point towards it. I think this chap sounds like a good candidate but, in the absence of reliable sources connecting him personally with the success of his films, I would still say no. For example, Little Mermaid 2 and Return to Neverland would probably have been financial successes even if written by a hoard of monkeys. GDallimore (Talk) 14:29, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That is like saying that a certain hit movie would've been just as popular without the actors that were chosen, so no need to give them credit for being in it. Or if their acting ability in the film was not specifically praised by notable reviewers, they aren't important enough to have their own page, no matter how many hit films they have been in. And if a movie isn't good(by definition of its target audience), then I don't think it'll continue to do well after its opening weekend. Dream Focus (talk) 16:56, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Tom Cruise is notable, but his father may not be. And yet without his father we couldn't have Tom Cruise. Arguments are fun and interesting, but notability is demonstrated by including sources that include substantial discussion of the article's subject. There are of course exceptions when notability is somehow inherent, but I don't think everyone involved in a successful project is inherently notable. 19:05, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- 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.