Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bernard Edlington (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   delete. Consensus is that the sources provided are not (quite) enough to establish notability. The opinions of the single purpose accounts were discounted.  Sandstein  16:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Bernard Edlington
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Deleted by Articles for deletion/Bernard Edlington and messily again at Articles for deletion/Bernard Edlington2 which went to DRV which overturned on procedural grounds: the article is different from the 2007 and the AfD was not allowed to run properly. However: the article, the deletion review and the deleted version were all the work of the same editor, who has few other contributions to the project. The editor's name is Nexusb, and guess what the subject's company is called? Yes, you guessed it, Nexus. So it is not stretching the bounds of credulity at all to infer that Nexusb is someone from Nexus whose name starts with B. Maybe even Bernard, you never know. WP:COI, WP:SPA and possible WP:AUTO aside, the assertions of notability are not noticeably stronger than when previously deleted, and fall well short of compelling. Not CSD#A7 material, but several at DRV felt that it fell below WP:N by a tidy margin. I agree, and consensus is to relist, so here it is. Guy (Help!) 19:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Update: deleted history at supports the hypothesis that Nexusb is or is closely associated with the subject. See also Requests for checkuser/Case/Nexusb. Guy (Help!) 22:43, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete Not a bad article, but I can't see notability. Show me why and I'll be only too happy to change my mind. Good luck with it. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - For all the reasons outlined by Guy. (For the record, I feel that it was a valid G4; but I can see the reasoning of those on the other side.) -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  20:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Not to beat a dead horse or anything, but you still think it's a valid G4? -- Ned Scott 06:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * weak delete Guy makes a good case but some of the claims made in the article are the sort of thing that normally lead to separate reliable sources. However, the repeated attempts to recreate this article suggest that such sources do not exist. If further sourcing can be presented I'll likely change my mind. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * There really weren't repeated attempts to recreate the article. An admin undeleted the article and moved it to userspace, the user worked on it for about a year and decided to try it in main space. That's all there was to it, and that's pretty normal for a user draft. -- Ned Scott 06:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  22:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per Guy. Eusebeus (talk) 22:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions.   -- Ned Scott 06:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.   -- Ned Scott 06:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep A little on the thin side for sources, but the visual arts credits are legit. Visual arts techs and crew members are often seen as less notable than actors, when often they play a role that is just as important. -- Ned Scott 06:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Being an artist isn't notable, of itself. Being an innovative or celebrated artist is, as per WP:CREATIVE. I can see how this one might be with only the slightest nod in that direction, but I'm not seeing it from the article as it stands. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Visual arts tech doesn't always mean artist. He's also an entertainment tech, and a highly skilled one at that, who's had significant involvement in several notable productions. -- Ned Scott 06:55, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

— Charicoo3 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WWGB (talk) 10:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC) — Chiewan (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WWGB (talk) 10:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC) Unfortunately the only thing I have against the article is I think English speakers in Japan are easier to cover on Wikipedia. It's hard to create a bio. Much harder if it's in another language, I am sure the creator took a long time to make the page so for that reason alone he/she may have more of a vested interest than a native English speaker, maybe even a good reason for restoration? Yama88 (talk) 05:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC) — Yama88 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete and no reason given. Please check why this article being deleted for the last two times. Raymond "Giggs" Ko 09:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * KeepIf all the sources are true then I do see notability. His work on the first live election broadcast using a virtual set alone at least is notable. The comment about sources, could be said of any article. First you dispute the sources then AfD. If you cannot find the sources yourself, you can ask the creator or the sources themselves for proof.Charicoo3 (talk) 09:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * KeepNeeds more information. There is no real info on the bigger stuff he did. One line for the long time AR exhibit he make at the national museum in Unzendake? Where is the info on the techniques used in last weekends film? Came to this page after I heard about it, but none of these articles are quoted, need more sources.10:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)Chiewan (talk)
 * Delete. He may have an interesting and varied career, but I don't see notability. WWGB (talk) 10:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, but expand. I'm not sure what the article looked like when this AFD was launched, but I'm seeing multiple sources cited (the fact not all are available online is irrelevant), plus involvement in major productions. I agree it should play this up a bit more, rather than it being more or less a CV of his work. 23skidoo (talk) 12:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep A sufficient number of major productions and installations. DGG (talk) 18:11, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Completely non-notable. Working on some notable productions does not mean he is notable himself. Anyone who gets a job at a TV or film production company will get their name on lots of credits for productions. They all get credits. That does not mean the person themselves is notable, and we must draw that important distinction. Look at the hundreds of people on the credits of Batman. Do they all deserve a Wiki article? A film credit or IMDB entry is not notability. Look at the article itself. He hasn't done anything, and he actually has relatively few credits. The line that says he is "creating new procedural based rendering pipelines" sounds fabulous, but is just fluff. Fancy language that says he is checking that one brand of software works with another. Note there are no online references that mention his name beyond just a credit. Not one supplied. That means not notable.-- Lester  21:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No offense, but you don't seem to understand the difference between a coffee boy and a lead programmer of visual effects. -- Ned Scott 06:58, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Actually I thought published articles carry more weight than online ones, no? Some admins opinions regarding notability seem to have a very western bias WP:IDONTKNOWIT, even systemic bias maybe you should ask someone from Japan, or some proof if you dispute the sources. Yes a credit is just a credit, but with backed up articles that is a different thing.
 * I don't see anyone claiming that his work isn't notable because it was on Japanese TV they're unfamiliar with, but rather because it's unclear what notable contribution this particular person made, and why that was more notable than mere employment in TV. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I am very sorry if I was unclear, I did not mention anything regarding Japanese TV. What I meant by systemic bias was most of the sources are from Japanese published articles and the quick assumption that foreign published articles are insignificant. Honestly I also think the document is fairly slim, however it has been backed up. I just think you should be fair regarding foreign publications. Also if you read the article properly the guy is not a TV employee at all, it says that is where his career started. His achievements since 1997 are in (I assume mostly) feature film. The achievements are clear too describing "nature, motion and design with his own software and algorithms" with reference to published material.Yama88 (talk) 13:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete, no real case for notability here - I fail to see why he's more notable than the hundreds of other visual effects people out there. For all we know, his work on the productions listed could have involved making coffee for the rest of the production crew.  Would not appear to meet the WP:CREATIVE notability guideline..  Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC).
 * Delete. This is short of the level of notability expected by WP:CREATIVE. For instance, it is expected that The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors. Though the article has references, it is not clear if there are any independent third parties expressing their approval of his work. So we don't perceive that his work is widely cited or commented on. Japanese language sources could be summarized in English (on the article Talk page) if there is a chance we are missing something important. EdJohnston (talk) 23:35, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * delete per Guy & Lankiveil, and salt subject fails WP:CREATIVE and recreation fails to fix problem. Pete.Hurd (talk) 04:07, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but that's an ignorant suggestion. The user was specifically allowed to work on a draft, and did so for about a year, and only then was it "recreated". Salting in this case would be completely and entirely inappropriate. -- Ned Scott 07:05, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator, reads like a non-notable autobiographical article. JBsupreme (talk) 07:06, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I was the one who write the bio, so I feel I should not vote on the issue. I have asked Guy for an apology on his discussion page. I also feel this is getting bit nasty, so maybe I should go back to the other bios I started. I mean articles from magazines, newspapers, papers on this guy were more than 5 pages long. If that is not notable ... well. There are English article sources too. Go look them up, you only have to disprove one of my sources right? When I just started the page. It was rightfully deleted due to lack of substance, didn't have many articles dates about him etc. I only had info from 1 magazine. The page was put into my user-space so .... of course I was the only one who edited it. I also feel I had to, as it was my first entry into the wikiworld. I Spent ages getting information, I don't think I will go to that trouble again. People will probably call my new bio's auto's as well.Nexusb (talk) 08:07, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Here is request for an apology I left on Guy's page "I will not assume malice from your comments regarding the deletion of a bio I wrote on Bernard Edlington my I am sure you are a busy admin and whatnot. I am NOT him, close friend, or his employee. I DO work for a company called Nexus llc, which I think is named different from his. You CAN check my logs, ip whatever. If you think that is a coincidence well that word is immensely popular among us CG geeky crowd here, probably due to the Blade Runner cult status. Also You said it was the only bio I wrote, that too is wrong. I have a couple more, I am still writing, you can check my logs for those. I know I am slow, which was the reason for the first deletion. Learnt from my mistakes an now check my facts. Please do not assume too much, your assumptions may be wrong in some cases. I would love an apology, I really did not intend any malice by creating a bio"  Nexusb (talk) 09:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Still trying not to assume malice despite the attitude such as here and here. Nexusb (talk) 09:57, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom, notability not established ukexpat (talk) 15:25, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Notability in a nutshell reads: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable". The sources quoted are from many, many independent reliable published secondary sources.Yama88 (talk) 10:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions.   —Esn (talk) 21:03, 28 July 2008 (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.