Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Celine Abiad


 * 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. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 04:22, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Celine Abiad

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Subject does not fulfill WP:FILMMAKER or WP:GNG notability requirments. No second-party sources. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:48, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions.  —Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:51, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:51, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:52, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete BLP violation with multiple unadressable issues. My WP:BEFORE shows this individual as not having sourcable notability and thus failing both WP:FILMMAKER and WP:GNG. With respects, she's barely verifiable.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 06:49, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: Relevant discussion with the editor who created this article can be found here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:46, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Per the linked discussion, I am not adverse to this be userfied... just so long as the author understands WP:COI and the requirement for WP:V and WP:RS, and that this is not simply stored in his userspace indefinitely.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 01:06, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Just for the record, I agree with MQS's conditions regarding userfication, with the additional caveat that any copyright violation in the article be removed or cleared up via OTRS before userfication. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:07, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Whiffs of COI.♦ Dr. Blofeld
 * Whiffs? Reeks is more appropriate. However, in the linked discussions, the author has been most conciliatory.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 19:24, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's true. I think he's not lacking in good faith, it's just that until such time as there are reliable sources as to the notability of the film, director and producer, his aim -- to promote their interests, albeit in a manner that as low-key and non-POV as possible -- is fundamentally at odds with our aim, to make sure that our coverage extends only to notable subjects.  I have little doubt that if they keep on making films, they will pass the notability line at some point, I'm just not sure it's going to happen in the near future with this particular film -- and they're certainly not there yet. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:03, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I hope the author gains an understanding of WP:TOOSOON and WP:NAU.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 09:37, 26 October 2011 (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.