Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Glosserman

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. Courcelles 07:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Glosserman

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

Delete. The article is about a documentary film producer, however, the subject does not meet criteria presented at WP:CREATIVE or WP:GNG. Subject is not regarded as an important figure; is not widely cited by peers or successors; is not known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique; has not 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; and finally, subject's work has not become a significant monument, has not been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, has not won significant critical attention, nor has been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. Please note that the subject has produced the documentary Truth in Numbers? Everything According to Wikipedia, which is also at AfD. Cindamuse (talk) 14:41, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: At the above-mentioned AFD, the film Truth in Numbers? Everything According to Wikipedia had its notability established and the AFD closed as a keep on November 5. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:57, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The film Behind the Mask: The Rise of Leslie Vernon won the 2006 Audience Award at the Gen Art Film Festival in New York and a few other awards (Best Film at the Toronto After Dark Film Festival, and so on) [1]. Koko90 (talk) 15:02, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This film has a separate article. However, these film festival awards do not equate to significant critical attention to establish notability of the subject of the Scott Glosserman article. Cindamuse (talk) 15:25, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Scott Glosserman is the director of Behind the Mask: The Rise of Leslie Vernon. Therefore, the awards where given to him (as you can see on [2]). Koko90 (talk) 15:56, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. I understand that he received a "special mention", two audience awards, and another two at the "Fant-Asia Film Festival". However, these film festival awards do not equate as significant critical acclaim. Respectfully, Cindamuse (talk) 16:58, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Satisfies criteria 3 of Creative for me. Creating a significant "well-known" work which has been the subject of multiple independent reviews. [3][4][5][6] Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:25, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. While "significance" is subjective, I doubt that a film lacking a starring cast and generating revenue of only $69,136 qualifies as significant or well-known, in order to establish the notability of the director. It's really a stretch. Cindamuse (talk) 16:58, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Money is not really one of my factors to determine well known or significance. I look more at the amount of publicity a movie receives from reliable sources. The number of reviews by large circulation newspapers is more controlling to me. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:18, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Netflix lists 117,704 ratings and 472 written reviews for Behind The Mask. http://movies.netflix.com/WiMovie/Behind-the-Mask-The-Rise-of-Leslie-Vernon/70061490?strackid=5d42a653a905149_0_srl&strkid=980499057_0_0&trkid=438381#height1741 - Also, last week the Alternative Chronicle (cinema blog) had 11 prominent horror bloggers list their top 10 all time horror films and Behind The Mask made 3 of the lists: http://alternativechronicle.wordpress.com/2010/10/31/horrortop10/ - —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.149.179.211 (talk) 03:59, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:44, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:44, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Criteria #3 of WP:CREATIVE has been met. Wikipedia has absolutely no mandate that only major blockbusters with A-list actors can be found notable. Wikipedia does not rely on a studio spending lots of money on their films and advertising in order to attract the monies of consumers... but it does rely on WP:GNG in determing notability of film projects... even for lesser-financed films from independent filmmakers. As this individual's works have received the attention required by WP:CREATIVE#3... and he even modestly approaches WP:ANYBIO, his notability has been established. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:09, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies notability due to the awards, well known works, secondary source coverage, etc. -- Cirt (talk) 18:07, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Added sect to article = Awards, see [7]. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 18:37, 10 November 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.