Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Overtoom (2nd nomination)


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 21:08, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Andrew Overtoom
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Person is still not notable, nothing appears to have changed since the last time it was deleted. -FilmOliver —Preceding undated comment added 20:29, November 21, 2012


 * Note I have refactored the above to include the standard AfD templates, transcluded the discussion, and fixed the template on the article. Please leave the time of this comment as the official starting time for the discussion. Monty  845  02:43, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 26 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep this is already kept for speedy for G4 which states that "A sufficiently identical and unimproved copy, having any title, of a page deleted via its most recent deletion discussion may be deleted". This article wasn't a copy of the prior version. Mediran  talk to me! 12:04, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Reply - Not qualifying for speedy deletion is not a reason for keeping an article. It only means that it should be taken to AFD for a fuller discussion which is what should happen here. -- Whpq (talk) 17:04, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Because the nominator was saying that there were "nothing appears to have changed since the last time it was deleted.". Since it was declined, it means that the article was a modified version prior to that of the first. See this for the declination and please see G4 for more info. Thanks. Mediran  Season's greetings!Candy_stick_icon.png 10:11, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't interpret the nomination in the same way you did. I interpret it to mean that Overtoom was deemed to be not notable at the previous AFD, and there has been no change in what Overtoom has done that would indicate he has become notable in the six months since the first AFD.  In any case, arguing semantics fails to address the reason for the nomination.  Can you please explain how notability is met in this version of the article? -- Whpq (talk) 12:01, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Because the first AfD was of course a discussion for the first version, they will base on that and if the article's contexts are insufficient, it may be deleted as per the content of that. In comparison of that of the first, this version has improvement and asserted significance as the subject has been a crew for SpongeBob SquarePants, Family Guy and in The Mighty B!, also for being nominated for Emmys several times. Mediran  talk to me! 13:45, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - Insufficient coverage to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:08, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 04:37, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak delete Keep - (see comments below). I'm just not sure there's enough coverage there for the subject to pass WP:GNG or enough notable other things for the subject to pass any other criteria. Being nominated for an award isn't the same thing as winning one, unfortunately, so being an award nominee is not enough for a subject to be considered notable. Stalwart 111  05:28, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Subject does not meet WP:GNG or WP:CREATIVE, and his movie fails WP:NFILMS as well. There is a lot there, but not enough to get him past the threshold. § FreeRangeFrog 06:24, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep – I've just added multiple additional sources. There is critical commentary about his work in Variety and The Times, there's some coverage in Video Business, and I find the Calgary Herald article (not available online unfortunately) especially helpful towards WP:GNG notability. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 23:46, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Obviously those aren't linked (they are not required to be) but I'm happy to assume good faith and accept that they say what you say they say. Mine was a weak delete anyway - am now changing to keep on the basis of your efforts. Stalwart 111  00:00, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment My problem with this bio is that he hasn't actually achieved notability on his own - the article tries very hard to establish notability by association. Being nominated for something is not the same as winning and being recognized for that. The one thing he has done is that film, but the references you found (which I did find when I was looking at the film article itself) is that its only claim to notability is to have placed first at an equally non-notable film festival (Black Point Film Festival). Quite honestly in the whole I just don't see how this adds up to meeting even WP:GNG, let alone WP:CREATIVE. § FreeRangeFrog 00:03, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 *  Delete  Do we really want to set a standard of listing every minor independent film maker out there? Or everybody who has ever worked on a TV show?  I have hundreds of editing credits to my name (even Emmy award winning shows) but I don't have a wikipedia page, nor would I want one.  This isn't IMDB.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Filmoliver (talk • contribs) 15:00, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - No need to have a bolded !vote. The nomination is taken as a delete. -- Whpq (talk) 11:03, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per improvements showing a meeting of WP:ANYBIO: "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times. "  Per WP:NRVE,it would seem available sources show a meeting of WP:GNG and so, despite the nominator's feeling that this person is insignificant, both article and the project will benefit from further expansion and improvement through regular editing. User:Paul Erik leads the way by showing us just what building a proper encyclopedia is all about Kudos! ` Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q.
 * 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.