Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/C.J. Obasi


 * 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 no consensus. Randykitty (talk) 15:54, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

C.J. Obasi

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The subject fails WP:GNG. The references given, apart from being unreliable do not focus on the subject. I tried to use google, but nothing relevant came up either. The subject has directed one notable film, and that makes his name pop up in google searches....but all the articles only talk about his film, and just mention his name as the director and that's it; according to WP:NOTINHERITED, notability is not inherited.Jamie Tubers (talk) 11:38, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:16, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:17, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*Let's talk!* 04:22, 16 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Weak delete: He has directed very few notable films, but that does not translate to him being notable. The only reason why I'm making this weak is because I am not sure if directors of notable films are automatically regarded as being notable themselves. Darreg (talk) 19:24, 20 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep:– Subject of the article meet WP:ANYBIO and WP:DIRECTOR as a creative professional whose work has received significant coverages in multiple reliable sources. The subject of the article is a director of a notable film called Ojuju that won the, "2014 Best Nigerian Film" award at Africa International Film Festival. The subject of the article also directed Jim & Joan, an award-winning film at the 3rd Eko International Film Festival. The subject of the article is a creative professional I don't think his notability is inherited. Cases of  WP:NOTINHERITED includes examples  like "She models for Calvin Klein", "He is a son of Barrack Obama", "He is a friend of Patrick Sawyer" and so on.
 * The subject of the article is a Creative professional.
 * A creative professional may be included in the encyclopedia if "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" which the subject has obviously met. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 07:56, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: This subject doesn't pass WP:ANYBIO; he hasn't received a well-known and significant award or honor, neither has he been nominated for one several times. AFRIFF is a notable festival, but its award ceremony is not prestigious. Eko Film festival is barely notable, talkless of its awards. Then again, the subject has not made any widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in filmmaking or even Nigerian cinema, as stipulated...so how does he pass this criteria?
 * The WP:DIRECTOR doesn't state anything like what you wrote - "a creative professional whose work has received significant coverages in multiple reliable sources". You are also saying it passes the third criteria of WP:DIRECTOR...can you please state his work that has become so "significant/well known" that it is used as "the subject of an independent book [..] or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews"?--Jamie Tubers (talk) 10:20, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * How as it fails WP:ANYBIO? Is the award ceremony not part of the AFRIFF festival? If no, then what makes up the festival? WP:ANYBIO stipulated that a subject is notable if "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field" are you saying that Ojuju is not a well recognize work of the subject? The Book and review you mention above applies to WP:AUTHOR, WP:ECONOMIST And probably to WP:JOURNALIST
 * For WP:DIRECTOR– a Director may be notable, if "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent feature-length film".
 * What you stated above that it is usedas "the subject of an independent book [..] or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews"? Could probably applies to WP:AUTHOR, WP:ECONOMIST and WP:JOURNALIST who are writers but certainly not strictly to WP:DIRECTOR. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 11:41, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, you didn't answer the questions! Rather you now claim the criteria (which you cited your self) do not apply to WP:DIRECTOR.... And No, Ojuju isn't significant enough to make its director automatically notable; it is just a random notable film; it hasn't received wide critical acclaim, no book adaptations (like The Figurine's case), no educational studies on it, no critical analyses, no prestigious awards (like The AMAAs) in a big category (like best film), no periodic comic books on the film....actually, NOTHING!!! It's just notable like any other film, nothing more to make it a "Well known/significant" film.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 19:40, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I never cited any criteria on my own. The criteria I cited above was adapted from the original criteria. I only tried to break it down for better understanding. The fact that WP:AUTHOR, WP:ECONOMIST WP:JOURNALIST, WP:FILMMAKER, WP:DIRECTOR and WP:ARTIST are govern by similar guidelines per "CREATIVE PROFESSIONAL" does not mean there are no specificity. Don't ignore the use of Or in the guideline. From criteria 3, feature-length film is highly specific for  WP:FILMMAKER, WP:DIRECTOR and WP:ARTIST and may not necessarily applies to WP:AUTHOR, WP:ECONOMIST  WP:JOURNALIST. Do you mean that the work of an "Economist" must be a suject of feature-length film to be notable? But you will agree with me that the work of an "Economist" and "AUTHOR must be the subject of an independent book or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews to be notable. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 20:48, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * works of authors get adapted into feature-length films/TV series, while works of filmmakers get adapted into independent books or comics / spin off TV series / get a remake etc. And my point is for a creative professional, without independent focused coverage in reliable sources to be considered notable, his works must have been very significant, and not just notable!--Jamie Tubers (talk) 23:48, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Keep: per wikicology's argument. I can sense a WP:COI and I quite agree that the article needs a rewrite. — Note to closing Admin: Samatics (talk • contribs) joined Wikipedia on 22 December 2014 and has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 13:29, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep I tend to interpret WP:CREATIVE for film to mean 1 clearly notable film, or multiple barely notable ones. As his film won a national level award, it's clearly notable.  DGG ( talk ) 23:11, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. The film is barely notable, as is the festival, but I can imagine people trying to find information on the title and the director. The bio requires serious work, though.  kashmiri <sup style="color:#80F;">TALK  00:16, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:BLP and WP:V for this BLP having no reliable sources, which mandates deletion. If reliable sources are found that cover the core of the content, the article should be kept because the subject appears notable, but the article needs rewriting.  Sandstein   10:12, 1 January 2015 (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.