Talk:J. K. Amalou

Recreated
I'm aware that this was deleted at AfD but there seemed to be a consensus of all concerned, including the nominator that the article could be recreated with sourcing that would establish notability. It's not heavy heavy coverage, but his 2012 film received 8 reviews at Rotten Tomatoes and a 2015 film received 1, enough to where he'd pass notability guidelines if this was taken to AfD or DRV. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  11:07, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * No worries here. As deletion-happy as I may appear sometimes, I virtually never have any objection to recreation of an article if the notability and sourceability can be made better than they were the first time — and, in fact, I'm often the first one to point out, when I see people complain about an AFD result, that the deletion does not constitute a permanent ban on the subject ever having an article, but that a new article can be recreated again if better notability and/or sourceability can be shown. I did add a stub tag since this is still a short article in its current form, but I'm not going to take issue with the recreation itself. Thanks for putting in the extra effort! Bearcat (talk) 16:18, 8 December 2015 (UTC)


 * No problem - I wasn't really worried about you being delete happy, mostly just that I'd re-created this so quickly after the last AfD closed. I've done recreations before, but normally it's at least months or years after the fact. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  05:11, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Contested speedy
I'm going to contest the speedy because the article contains far more content and sourcing than it previously had per my note above. It looks like one of the films he's directed has an article that passes NFILM and it also looks like another of his movies, Deviation, could warrant an article of its own given the available sourcing. At the very least this would have to go through AfD, however I think that there's likely enough sourcing here to justify inclusion, given that the director's work has received coverage from Total Film, The Guardian, and The Standard. Sourcing didn't fall all over themselves to cover him, but it looks like there's just enough here to pass. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  06:50, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * CSD removed, the new sourcing is enough for me to see it doesn't meet G4. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:01, 8 June 2017 (UTC)