Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Ferns

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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:18, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Ferns

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

The article is a BLP (and, perhaps, a vanity piece) on a student filmmaker. It is lacking in reliable sources, and I am not finding anything on Google to help it meet notability requirements as per WP:BIO. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 23:26, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Google may not bring reliable sources yet the artical its self features reliable links and I shall edit it to contain a newspaper clipping on the subject of michale and his films --Whenigrowup999 (talk) 23:28, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Added Newspaper clipping and BAFTA websites award winners list and aceptance speach video , all for notibilty . --Whenigrowup999 (talk) 23:40, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Being a BAFTA Award winner meets WP:ANYBIO.[1] However, the very new article sent to AFD only 4 minutes after its creation[2] will need further sourcing and cleanup for style... but such would seem do-able through regular editing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:17, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: I'm quite interested in hearing what was the bloody rush to nominate this article for deletion? BAFTA awards are highly notable, and the mere assertion of one should have been enough to provoke some research. With an article nominated moments after creation, it doesn't seem as if such research was attempted. Meanwhile, the creator kept on improving the article, and I can only hope his reception as a newcomer to Wikipedia didn't turn him off. Ravenswing 17:56, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I made a special point to give him the "Welcome message" that no one else had.[3] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:33, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I saw that, good on you. Ravenswing 21:54, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per RGT.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per RGT. Hopefully this rush to nominate didn't scare away a new editor. Probably one of my biggest pet peeves is when people rush to delete an article that could easily be notable. -DJSasso (talk) 18:47, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If you read his biography carefully, he is not a BAFTA Award winner -- he is the winner of the BAFTA Scotland New Talent Award, which I assume is the Scottish equivalent of the Student Academy Award. I am unaware that Wikipedia is extending notability to student filmmakers, especially those that appear to be writing vanity articles. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 00:49, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: Something of a "When did you stop beating your wife?" statement, isn't it? We are, in point of fact, choosing to believe someone honored by BAFTA to be notable. That the subject is young, or that you speculate that he is the creator of the article, isn't particularly relevant to WP:ENTERTAINER or the GNG. Ravenswing 04:54, 9 December 2010 (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.