Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Rafael Rose


 * 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 delete.  Sandstein  21:09, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Alex Rafael Rose

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Sources provided are unreliable. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 21:54, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 21:57, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 21:57, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 21:57, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Most of the sources aren't self published - the Facebook was from the official Kent Vegan Festival page posting a photo with the subject. The Youtube was not Rose's Youtube page but in fact the official Youtube page of The People's Assembly, so not self published. The IMDB was generated by Withoutabox because of Festival selection. There are plenty of credible sources that are way more than 'passing mention' - the reviews from top film websites, the crediting of everything to the subject on the People's Assembly website, the crediting of the entire interview to Rose on the New Statesman article, the countless listings in Film Festivals confirming the films' selections (is this what you mean by 'passing mention'? Because that's not an accurate description, they are listings in official selections for Film Festivals. There are clearly a lot of strong sources, and your criticism of the sources just doesn't hold up. Bompybabomperson
 * Delete Most sources are self-published (IMDb, YouTube, Facebook); passing mention in others. --Drm310 (talk) 21:58, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think you read Wikipedia's definition of self-published sources. It is a source that consists mainly or wholly of user-generated content, without any editorial control.
 * Withoutabox is just an Amazon/IMDb-owned service, so its submissions were almost certainly by Mr. Rose himself or someone acting on his behalf. Citing IMDb lists the specific circumstances where citing the IMDb is acceptable.
 * At WP:NOYT, you will see the circumstances in which Facebook or YouTube can be considered valid primary sources. As well, I am not convinced that simply having ones works included in a festival or being credited as an interviewer makes one notable enough to satisfy the basic criteria of notability for people. Mentioning associations with other notable people isn't going to help either, since notability is not inherited.
 * If you can provide multiple reviews of his films from reliable sources that are independent of the subject and the festival organizations (e.g. major news organizations, established film publications or websites, etc.), then this article might have a better chance of survival. --Drm310 (talk) 23:08, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Surely this provides an independent featuring of him and his content - http://cinemajam.com/mag/features/alex-raphael-rose - I also believe there's an interview and TV appearance coming out after his next screening at the book club-http://www.wearetbc.com/whats-on/alex-rafael-rose-presents-boddah49-with-a-live-qa/ - so once that's available it can be put here for citation. I understand what you are saying, but I don't think your criticisms qualify the page for deletion, I think the page just requires a notice saying there are problems with the page and asking people to contribute citations if they know of any. I just found the citations I used from a quick google of his name, but I'm just if other people do some digging there will be more citations available online that fit your criteria a bit better. Surely? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bompybabomperson (talk • contribs) 23:52, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. The IMDb is not a reliable source, as it's user-generated.  YouTube can be a reliable source in certain circumstances, but, to demonstrate notability, it would have to be the official channel of a recognized news source, such as CNN or the BBC.  People's Assembly Against Austerity (this is the organization, I think?) looks like an activist group, not a professional news organization.  We need coverage in reliable sources of this person.  Film festival listings are not good enough.  An interview performed by the person is not evidence of notability.  An interview of the person could be.  When this person makes headlines in newspapers and magazines, then we'll have enough sources to write an article.  Right now, it looks too soon. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:36, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * — Note to closing admin: Bompybabomperson (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.
 * The Cinema Jam reference might be acceptable. It looks like a trade magazine for film professionals and appears to be independent.
 * However, there's a problem with your other statements. "There's an interview and TV appearance coming out after his next screening" tacitly admits that nothing exists now. Wikipedia articles do not speculate on the potential future notability of a subject (WP:CRYSTAL). They are about subjects that are already notable at the time of the article's creation.
 * "If other people do some digging" contradicts Wikipedia's verifiability policy that states that the burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material. It's not fair for someone to write an article and then expect others to provide the necessary citations to verify its content. You must do the heavy lifting yourself if you want your contributions to withstand scrutiny.
 * Maybe this individual will become notable, or maybe they won't. At this time, it's too soon to know. --Drm310 (talk) 05:58, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I simply meant that if the article lacks credible sources, I am aware that there will be another one in a couple weeks to bolster it at /that/ time, not now. I understand what you are saying, and I did supply as many citations and 'heavy lifting' as I could, I just don't think the criticism qualifies it for deletion. I think the subject is clearly notable enough, just the article needs some credible sources to be found - not to be deleted. Bompybabomperson (talk) 23:51, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - Exactly and if there's nothing to even suggest he's generally notable (GNG), there's not much for a better article yet. SwisterTwister   talk  05:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - nothing to show the notability of this individual as per wiki criteria. Other than a single trivial mention on News and a separate equally trivial mention on Highbeam, absolutely zilch on the search engines.  Onel 5969  TT me 13:21, 5 December 2015 (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.