Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mesh Flinders

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. per WP:SNOW JForget 22:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mesh Flinders

If you came here because http://lg15today.blogspot.com/2009/09/jackson-davis-lives.html, 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}}.

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

Only notable for co-creating the internet web series lonelygirl15. Appears to fail Wikipedia:Notability, likely fails WP:AUTHOR. Also WP:1E/WP:NOTNEWS. Otterathome (talk) 17:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Now let's see, the editor who just lost a one-man army battle to delete Jackson Davis, with a warning not to engage in further AfDs like this, suddenly nominates another article related to Lonelygirl15 for deletion a few hours after that AfD ends with a keep. Before we even start this, Otter, I request that you take a break from this behavior and withdraw the nomination. I don't say this lightly, but I believe you are harming the project with your behavior. To other editors reading this comment, I ask that you read the debate at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jackson_Davis_(3rd_nomination) and the wikiquette alert for the nominator before weighing in. I am sure this article can be demonstrated to be notable as well. --Milowent (talk) 17:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is yet another example of confirmation bias on the part of the individual suggesting deletion. --Modelmotion (talk) 18:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Complaining that I nominated it isn't helping the notability of this biography.--Otterathome (talk) 18:31, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Oh please. I guess I'll formally weigh in now, though surely this talk page will be a huge scroll within the week. --Milowent (talk) 18:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: This nomination fails Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, which states "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion." Milowent has clearly been showing that the page can be improved through his recent edits to the page. The nomination does NOT fail the policies listed above due to the following reasons. Wikipedia:Notability states "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." Flinders has received such coverage as evidenced by the sourced and externally linked publications linked from his article. WP:AUTHOR states "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." Flinders played a major role in co-creating Lonelygirl15, which has been the subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. WP:1E -- Flinders is also notable for his short films which were submitted and placed in various film festivals (see the article itself). However, even if you only count him as notable for lonelygirl15 (which he is not, but that's beside the point), 1E states "In considering whether or not to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and the degree of significance of the individual's role within it should be considered." Since Flinders had a hugely significant role (co-Creator) in the creation of Lonelygirl15 (a hugely significant event - see my argument here), he merits his own article. Finally, WP:NOTNEWS does not apply because Flinders' article is not here because he was in the news once or twice, he co-Created Lonelygirl15, which is not a fleeting news story, but a groundbreaking and historical event (by this I mean, it started the genre and was the subject of multiple major press coverages when the story about its fictionality broke). ADDITIONALLY, the motives of the individual nominating this page are relevant here. This AfD, about a lonelygirl15-related subject was made mere hours after the closing of the Jackson Davis AfD (another Lonelygirl15 related subject), which was closed as keep. This, along with his behavior in the LG15: The Last AfD and following merge discussion show that the editor appears to engage in tendentious editing and does not have a neutral point of view when it comes to nominating LG15-related articles for deletion. A full description of his behavior can be seen here, and I would appreciate if any third-party editor or admin reviewing this page would please keep that in mind when determining the outcome of this AfD. --Zoeydahling (talk) 20:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The local paper is the only significant coverage via the dead link (this sounds familiar), yes it seems to pass #4 of WP:AUTHOR. Short films/awards don't seem to be notable. So still a WP:1E connection with lonelygirl15. So a merge isn't out of the question.--Otterathome (talk) 20:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On what basis do you consider the films/awards non-notable? The festivals they were entered in were notable, therefore any awards stemming from those entries, not to mention their placement in the festivals themselves are notable. And once again, even if he was only notable for Lonelygirl15 (which again, he is not), the policy states "In considering whether or not to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and the degree of significance of the individual's role within it should be considered. which I have addressed above. Additionally, the only notable coverage is NOT his hometown paper. His college paper and the Wired article additionally provide significant coverage of the individual as well. --Zoeydahling (talk) 21:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overview of the current 21 sources:

link to lg wiki, not independant as associated with it
link to college website article, not independant as already associated with it
wired article more about his part in lonelygirl15
hometown newspaper article relating to his part in lonelygirl15
subjects website, not independant, if this is the only reference for the 'student award' then it is definately not notable
link to a video on what appears to be a youtube-like site. not notable
this seems to be an advert for him speaking at a college or something
just a long list of names with his next to pond
same as above
almost the same as the above two but in a schedule
2 sentences about the group behind lonelygirl15 in latimes is not significant coverage
sfgata.com - more about his part and other peoples part in the making of lonelygirl15
copy of 11
1 word mention about his household being used as a set in lonelygirl series
interview with the creators of series, not just him
this source seems fishy, 1 word mention anyway
just a note saying he is speaking at an event
subjects blog
company info
subjects website
his film website mentioning he is filming it, not independant

As I said before, the only two significant coverage article (local newspaper/wired) coverage is in relation to his part in lonelygirl15, which most of it appears to also be mentioned with other creators of the show. The other creators of the show have already been afd and redirected to main lonelygirl15 Greg+Miles. Everything else is mentions/non-notable/not independant.--Otterathome (talk) 12:33, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall saying that every source I added was going to add to the subjects' notability. I was just adding source material to prove that there was no original research, as per your request. I have to run right now, so I don't have to go through every source you listed above, along with your comments (I will try to come back and do that later), but I would like to point out that even if the two sources are the only ones that are significant, you yourself have stated "[a]ny notable biography is expected to have at least two" so according to your own definition this article meets Wikipedia:Notability. Additionally, Miles Beckett and Greg Goodfried will be going through a deletion review as soon as I have the time to put it together, so I would implore you not to judge based on that, at least until the DrV goes through with a verdict. Thanks. --Zoeydahling (talk) 17:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This nomination can be improved through editing, rather than deletion." - Ret.Prof (talk) 20:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Based on the following references from creditable – independent – verifiable – 3rd party sources [1]. Meets our current guidelines under notability for inclusion here at Wikipedia. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 20:56, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I take it you haven't read WP:LOTSOFSOURCES. Thanks.--Otterathome (talk) 20:58, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure have and the point :-). ShoesssS ^Talk 21:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Created a notable work of fiction, and has plenty of coverage. Dream Focus 14:40, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThe article is about a screenwriter who created an iconic character and was part of a very successful series. He has won several awards, and continues to create material. Also, I noticed the 'not a vote' box has once again been put up by the nominator and single person advocating for deletion. Seems to me that several good arguments have been made for keeping the article. Mathieas (talk) 18:29, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems to be notable enough to meet WP:AUTHOR. DGG ( talk ) 06:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Agree with at least the last three posters. - Shiori (talk) 15:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- sufficient evidence of notability given, including lonelygirl authorship and Pond's selection in multiple film festivals. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:19, 8 September 2009 (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.