Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Repasky McElhinney


 * 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. North America1000 03:36, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

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

G11. Unambiguous advertising or promotion

A7. No indication of importance (people, animals, organizations, web content, events) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73mmmm (talk • contribs)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:11, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:11, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep obviously not an A7 and any promo can be edited out. Has created a number of notable works and has some of his films in the permanent collections of notable museums such as the MOMA and therefore passes WP:NCREATIVE as well as WP:NARTIST with plenty of reliable sources coverage already in the article, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 23:24, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sheldybett (talk) 15:29, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. Definately not an A7 or even G11. Probably more of a technical pass of WP:NCREATIVE (it is easier for a copy of a film to be held, although it does imply that the notable museums does want it); doesn't screen that well on a general GNG.  A niche artist, but a pass on WP policy none the less. Britishfinance (talk) 19:25, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep At least two of his films (Chronicle of Corpses and Story of the Eye) have been reviewed in the New York Times and similarly respected publications, and this Philadelphia Weekly interview cited in the article shows the existence of some coverage focused on the director himself, rather than one of his films. That said, the article needs a lot of work to meet quality standards. Very few independent/non-primary sources currently cited, lots of extraneous (non-verifiable) detail, and some style issues (e.g. proliferation of red links). Colin M (talk) 22:20, 19 February 2019 (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.