Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan B. Curtiss


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. i see a consensus to Keep this article, also it has been greatly expanded since the nomination. Moreover, I see no support for Deleting this article since it has been expanded. Liz Read! Talk! 17:35, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Alan B. Curtiss

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

WP:BLP of a filmmaker, not properly sourced as passing our inclusion criteria for filmmakers. As always, filmmakers are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on substantive coverage and analysis about their work in reliable sources -- but this is referenced entirely to IMDb, and makes no meaningful notability claim beyond the fact of his existence. While there are a lot of notable films in the filmography list, his credit on nearly all of them was "second unit/assistant director", which is in no way an "inherently" notable role that would constitute a "no sourcing required" freebie -- and while he later had some "associate producer" credits followed by one credit as a lead producer, that still isn't an inclusion freebie in the absence of adequate sourcing. The article has been tagged for referencing improvement since 2016 without ever being improved -- and while the film he was a full producer on does have an article in which his name is listed in the infobox, this article gets so little attention that his name was never even wikilinked there. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have a lot more than just an IMDb profile for sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 15:05, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 15:05, 20 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep. Assistant director of many notables films, verifiable contributions that make him fairly meet the criterion#3 for creative professionals:
 * 1) https://www.the-numbers.com/person/403260401-Alan-B-Curtiss#tab=summary
 * 2) https://variety.com/2014/film/global/afm-6-sales-to-rep-foreign-on-claudia-trevi-bio-gloria-exclusive-1201344481/
 * 3) https://www.aargauerzeitung.ch/aargau/baden/gloria-floppte-in-den-badener-kinos-ld.1550880
 * 4) https://entrefans.com/aplazan-estreno-de-la-pelicula-gloria/
 * 5) https://www2.bfi.org.uk/films-tv-people/4ce2baee6fb8b
 * 6) https://www.dga.org/The-Guild/Members/Profile.aspx?mid=iFWlqL2QJE4%3D
 * etc. (the GoogleBooks link lists many books that mention him) (for Waterworld, Gloria, Cast Away, Master and Commander, among other films)
 * I understand these are passing mentions but the guideline is clear: "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series);" The point is that his contributions to the making of very notable films is verifiable. Also a nomination for 2003 Directors Guild of America Awards-Outstanding Directorial Achievement in Feature Film: Nominated is mentioned, which is an indication.- My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)  18:29, 20 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep. If we add the DGA award nomination and the ref links mentioned above, his notability should be clear. —98.113.83.5 (talk) 19:40, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I just tried to improve the article based on this discussion. Hope this helps. —98.113.83.5 (talk) 04:17, 27 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete. Until and unless better sources which focus on him (i.e. not just name checks in articles about films he's worked on) can be found there isn't enough to support an article here.  The DGA award nomination is probably the best claim to automatic notability, but the media consistently covers that award as being presented to the primary director and not their team.  Also, I am not really comfortable allowing a BLP through on inferred notability in the absence of more coverage in reliable sources than I could find here.  Eluchil404 (talk) 23:22, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:28, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Okay, how about three DGA nominations, two Variety articles spotlighting the team award, four terms as an associate member of DGA's national board, and recognition for his long mentorship activities in the industry? I just added these to the article, too. —98.113.83.5 (talk) 01:43, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 16:46, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I've substantially improved the content and sourcing to satisfy WP:NBIO, after you originally posted the article here on AfD to highlight the problems. Would you like to provide an updated rationale for deletion, or would you agree that the updates have resolved the issues that you helpfully identified? —173.56.111.206 (talk) 20:18, 28 September 2023 (UTC) = 98.113.83.5 from another location (no intention to sockpuppet)
 * That's not how the AFD process works. Once I've listed it for discussion, I don't have to come back and evaluate whether any changes are "good enough for me" or not — the only thing that matters at all is where consensus of the participants in the discussion lands. I could withdraw the nomination if there were total unanimity that I was in error, by virtue of there being only keeps in the discussion with no deletes at all — but if there are any other delete votes I cannot close the discussion myself, and have to leave it for another administrator to evaluate the final consensus. So, since this was relisted today, the discussion has to remain open for at least another week, and there's absolutely nothing I can do to shorten that. Bearcat (talk) 20:38, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I wasn't asking you to shorten or close the discussion. I was asking if you agreed that your original rationale for deletion has been addressed. Of course you don't need to spend time answering or participating further, but your experienced viewpoint would have been helpful in a discussion with low participation. No problem either way. —173.56.111.206 (talk) 05:51, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep. Multiple major award nominations, named and verified by Variety as including AD. &mdash;siro&chi;o 22:15, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you. The current version of the article is greatly expanded, addresses all the concerns raised above, and satisfies all the cited standards -- WP:BLP, WP:RS, WP:GNG, WP:NBIO and its specific WP:FILMMAKER section. I would posit that a rough consensus now exists, since no comments (including the nominator's) have argued for deleting the expanded version of the article, only the much weaker previous versions that are no longer relevant. On the merits, I hope the improved content & sourcing can be acknowledged by the next closer and finally closed as a Keep, instead of endlessly relisting for the slim chance of broader discussion. —173.56.111.206 (talk) 04:17, 12 October 2023 (UTC)


 * 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.