Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colin Broderick

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. (non-admin closure) Iffy★Chat -- 11:02, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Colin Broderick

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Nothing cited in the article counts towards WP:GNG, and I can find nothing better online. Lots of name dropping, but subject has not doing anything notable enough. Maybe WP:TOOSOON. Promotional article, created by a WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 10:39, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:10, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:11, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:13, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:14, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep far from being TOOSOON, the splash made by Orangutan in 2009 is TOOLONGAGO to have shown up in User:Edwardx's searches. Broderick sails past NOTABILITY, AUTHOR with the reviews and coverage that memoir generated. Page just needs sourcing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:22, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I VOTE TO KEEP IT! Look, I never heard of a lot of people who have articles in Wikipedia. Some of them are there just because they're related to a famous person but haven't much to write about in their own lives - yet they have a page here. I never heard of Colin Broderick until I came across this article through a link from the article on Brendan Coyle. It was crap and needed work, so I cleaned it up. It took me quite a lot of time to do so.

If anyone thinks it looks promotional now, after I spent almost the entire day yesterday looking for sources to cite --AND FOUND MANY-- then I might wonder about your sanity. You should compare what it looks like today to the previous versions before I found it. It had clearly been written by someone who knew him and made it look like a brochure, but full of typos, spelling and grammar errors, and links to ridiculous sources without in-line citations. There are over 20 sources now cited in that article, and ALL of them are there because of what I found yesterday. The more I researched, the more references to him and his works I found, in American, English, and Irish newspapers, trade publications (show business trade), etc. Variety doesn't write about just any schmuck - this guy has connections to established and notable actors and producers. He is an up-and-coming independent filmmaker, whose first film was a juried selection in four film festivals and is about to be released on iTunes. He's NOT a nobody without notability, and as I said, there are articles in Wikipedia on people who are far less notable than this guy.

I tried to make the text as encyclopedic and neutral in tone as possible and I'm willing to work on it some more. Yes, I admit I would be upset if it were deleted because I spent SO MUCH time cleaning it up, when I should have been doing other things (Wikipedia is my go-to when I am procrastinating about doing other stuff), and I know it's still not a perfect Wiki article, BUT objectively, I feel this guy has notability according to WP:GNG, and it definitely SHOULD NOT be deleted! nycdi (talk) 04:17, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
sigh, the above and the page are certainly WP:PROMO, whether written by subject or by someone who loves, admires, or is paid to PROMOTE him I cannot say. There is a great deal of primary on the page, I removed a little, in the early paragraphs, and strongly advise User:Nycdi to remove everything sourced to a press release or a publisher . Here's a good rule of thumb: If it cannot be sourced to a WP:RS, it does not belong on the page. I also want to amend my statement above, the "splash" made by that first novel was in literary and Irish circles. Nevertheless, I have begun sourcing the page, and continue to see notability as an AUTHOR and FILMMAKER. Plus, WP:HEY I've added some sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:05, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comment, E.M. Gregory - I actually was unsure about press releases as sources, but included two, I believe. I see now that I shouldn't have. I will go back and remove those and the comments from the publisher as soon as I can. I'm still learning, after all these years. I usually just correct grammar and spelling without looking too much at the structure of a page. It's still an improvement over what it was, albeit a flawed one, but having this deletion question come up has made me look at what I did, and other articles, more closely and is helping me be a better editor nycdi (talk) 23:19, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:00, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as WP:HEY, the article has been improved with the edition of reliable sources references and sourced content so passes WP:GNG regards, Atlantic306 (talk) 18:26, 28 September 2018 (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.