Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Jones (filmmaker)


 * 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. Courcelles (talk) 20:09, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Chris Jones (filmmaker)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not notable enough for Wikipedia and cannot find many sources to support his relevance/notability for Wikipedia. Possibly written by the subject himself. Sheroddy (talk) 23:12, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 02:42, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 02:42, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete as per nom. Searches on News, Newspapers, Highbeam and JStor revealed nothing to show notability.  Onel 5969  TT me 20:57, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. I found a little bit of coverage.  He wrote The Guerilla Filmmakers Handbook and is the Creative Director of the London Screenwriters' Festival, both of which are discussed in this article from Screen International.  Also, his short Gone Fishing got a little press in this article.  Also some coverage in this article from ABC Online, and this article says that his short got lots of awards (without actually listing them).  I'm not 100% completely convinced, but I think maybe there's enough built up notability here.  I think it needs a bit more review, and I suspect most of these Wikipedia articles were created by COI SPAs.  But I guess I'm leaning toward keep. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:49, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Here's some more coverage: from Filmmaker and  from The Guardian.  They're interviews, but that's still coverage. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:55, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:13, 1 September 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep. Ah, why not.  I'll vote to keep.  Seems that nobody else is going to comment on the sources I found.  I listed seven or eight sources above, and I guess that's good enough for me, even if some of them are a bit light. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:41, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:50, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep and procedural close, nothing suggests the mandatory due dilligence has been performed. Nothing found? And what about
 * And that is only from a Google Book search, and the list goes on.
 * Nothing found on Highbeam? Well what about this? -- Sam Sailor Talk! 08:09, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * And that is only from a Google Book search, and the list goes on.
 * Nothing found on Highbeam? Well what about this? -- Sam Sailor Talk! 08:09, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * And that is only from a Google Book search, and the list goes on.
 * Nothing found on Highbeam? Well what about this? -- Sam Sailor Talk! 08:09, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * And that is only from a Google Book search, and the list goes on.
 * Nothing found on Highbeam? Well what about this? -- Sam Sailor Talk! 08:09, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Nothing found on Highbeam? Well what about this? -- Sam Sailor Talk! 08:09, 15 September 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.