Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben Seresin


 * 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. Kurykh (talk) 19:13, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Ben Seresin

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article lacks WP:RS. I have tried to find something about this person on GNews but all I got were passing mentions. This suggests that WP:GNG is not met. Contested WP:Prod.  Schwede 66  19:02, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep article contains ample reliable sources to establish a base notability. Not every cinematographer/film crew member will have a significant amount of sources laying around. Seresin is developing a substantial filmography that will likely only grow more with time. Nominating for deletion now I feel would be premature. Rusted AutoParts 19:11, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Have you ever read Identifying reliable sources? What we have is a primary source (his own website, which is of course not RS), an IMDb entry (which is particularly mentioned on the RS page), an advert (not RS either). That leaves us with the New York Film Academy source, which has at least some substance to it. It's got "blog" at the top of the page, but I admit that there are some things labelled as blog that I would consider reliable. I'm not sure where this one stands. It would surprise me if the item got "editorial oversight", but maybe they do that. It's a private school, so publishing this blog has possibly more of a promotional aspect than it being of journalistic nature. But in either case, that's the only source that may pass the reliable source test. So can you please explain,, what you mean be "ample reliable sources"?  Schwede 66  17:45, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The landscape of information has been evolving, from written word to social media. I feel that Seresin's website can and should be used as it does contain information needed to establish a biography. It'll be used when people need information about the man in articles/sources that'll talk about him.
 * I stand firm by my premature stance. The article is barely a week and a half old, and still has time to gain additional information. Rusted AutoParts 06:10, 19 February 2017 (UTC)


 * When you talk about your "premature stance", you seem to indicate that you yourself aren't convinced that he has gained general notability. When you say that his "filmography ... will likely only grow more with time", you are invoking what we call WP:CRYSTALBALL on Wikipedia. Notability is about the here and now, and not what might be at some point in the future.  Schwede 66  07:53, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * That's a pretty brazen assumption. I'm simply stating it's premature to say it's time to delete his article. Not me codedly stating "he's not notable". Me stating his filmography will grow is just me lamenting that he's a working cinematographer and will get more work. Rusted AutoParts 02:15, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete as per nom.  J 947  03:10, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 21:24, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. At best, WP:TOOSOON. He's worked on Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen and World War Z, but until he picks up an Oscar or at least a nomination, he isn't there yet. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:54, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - Lacks the significant coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability. And no, the subject's own web site is not a reliable source for establishing notability.  No prejudice to recreation in the future when his developing filmography garners him the the coverage needed to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 02:42, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:54, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:54, 2 March 2017 (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.