Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Kirk (producer)

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 redirect to Room 237. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:21, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Kirk (producer)[edit]

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

Non-notable individual. Majority of references avoid referring to individual or if they do they are only one line mentions. These are hardly enough to establish notability. reddogsix (talk) 01:14, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fairly minor producer. Only last reference mentions him by name. Fails WP:BIO. scope_creep (talk) 16:48, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete producer who hasn't produced anything especially notable yet. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:27, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Page RevisedThank you for your advice. You're right; the articles I linked to did not establish notariety, as you pointed out. I have attempted to correct this by adding 8 links to articles which feature the subject in the headline, and extensively quote him. Most of these are interviews with him alone, or with one other person. I hope this works. I could add a dozen more if it helps.Butchiegirl

Comment - All I see are primary references, the article needs secondary references. reddogsix (talk) 22:44, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -I have added another source, as per your guidance. I believe that this article now qualifies under Wikipedia: Notability (people), Creative Professionals, #3, "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.". The previous sources, and link to the film ROOM 237 on Wikipedia, establish that subject has produced a film which is significant and well-known, and has been the subject of multiple independent periodical articles and reviews. In the new source, the interviewee quotes and refers to many of these articles and reviews, and places the film within the context of the producer's other work. Butchiegirl —Preceding undated comment added 18:07, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Sorry, I don't agree the subject has created a major body of work or the film meets the criteria in the cited guideline.reddogsix (talk) 20:12, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've asked the Film Project for input on this. For the record, I do believe this person now passes WP:GNG. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:12, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Room 237 or delete. The few borderline sources play up his connection to the documentary. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:51, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Room 237. All the news coverage of him is in relation to the documentary, so I think he's a valid search term but the focus of the coverage is the film and he is simply discussing it. He also possibly fails WP:FILMMAKER, since I wouldn't call Room 237 a "significant" work; a significant work would be a film that has been subject of scholarly study, or a major retrospective, or analysed in detail by a prominent writer and goes beyond simply being notable. Betty Logan (talk) 09:14, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I believe this film is significant. If you do a google search, you will find hundreds of articles about Room 237. Not only reviews, but think-pieces about the film's innovative use of re-purposed footage, its impact on the emerging genre of visual essays, and the unprecedented use of Fair Use. It has played every major film festival in the world. It has made many critics top ten lists. Entertainment Weekly named it the #4 best film of 2012, above Argo. Chuck Klosterman called it "the best non-fiction film I've seen all year." Brett Easton Ellis dubbed it "one of the best films of 2012." As the producer of the film, the subject of my article "played a major role in co-creating" this significant film. Butchiegirl — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.38.97.197 (talk) 15:11, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It has received a lot of coverage, but so do Transformer movies. I think it is impossible to assess the significance of a piece of work by its immediate impact. If it is being singled out as a key work a few years down the line then it will be easier to determine. Betty Logan (talk) 15:29, 13 July 2013 (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.