Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andy Fetscher


 * 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:42, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Andy Fetscher

 * – ( View AfD View log )

The "sources" we have are a user-submitted biography, a promotional blurb on a self-published site and a résumé. Hardly enough to demonstrate the subject is worthy of inclusion. - Biruitorul Talk 18:46, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. Passes WP:FILMMAKER. The nominator is correct that the article is quite poor in its current sourcing. But in looking beyond current state, I look at WP:FILMMAKER and determine that as director, cinematographer, Editor, and writer of certain films which themselves have been the subject of enough coverage to be considered notable per Wikipeida standards, we have the filmmaker notable as their creator. The films may be genre films. The films may be German language films. So what?  Helpful toward cleanup and proper sourcing of this article is that the filmmaker has been interviewd about his work in such sources as Dread Central and Out Now (German) allowing current state to be addressable and his projects have been discussed at such disparate sources as Variety Dread Central SFU Frankenpost Horror Magazine and quite a few others, showing them and him to be notable.  What we have here is an adddressable issue that does not require deletion, but instead requires regular editing.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 04:57, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:FILMMAKER. I would argue that the "coverage" mentioned by MichaelQSchmidt does not, in my view, constitute the depth of critical attention to Fetscher's films that could warrant an article about him. The sources he suggests amount to brief plot summaries with cursory critical commentary if any. Terence7 (talk) 05:19, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You consider the lengthy film reviews of Urban Explorer in Variety and Negativ and Fangoria and Hollywood Reporter and Dread Central to be only a brief plot summaries or cursory critiques?? Or that of Bukarest Fleisch in Der Westen? Pardon, but yikes.  And you also decided that the lengthy and in-depth interviews of the fellow in both Dread Central and Out Now to be inconsequential??  Sure he's not Speilberg and his notability in the US is only beginning to grow, but his films and he have the required coverage to meet WP:GNG and be of benefit to Wikipedia..., and that coverage is by no means trivial mentions or listings.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 10:28, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep WP:FILMMAKER (3), last clause, Schmidt's sources. --joe deckertalk to me 00:45, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep Sources look sufficient.....borderline, but sufficient. North8000 (talk) 01:22, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * KEEP- again this "Biruitorul with his fanny ideas...could be he do not sleep too well!?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Q-ART (talk • contribs) 18:58, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note to closing admin: the above editor has been indef'd for disruptive editing, personal attacks, and sockpuppetry. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:46, 2 April 2012 (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.