Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dekker Dreyer (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   keep. Nomination wasn't too clear, and I'm not sure if nom has edited under another name, but this seems to be their first contribution. That being said, looking at the pile up of new citations since last nom convinces me that he at least passes a minimum of notability Valley2 city ‽ 19:50, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Dekker Dreyer
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

Not notable for any one thing fails WP:N as director,writer he needs notability is not inherited from a mash of borderline disjointed thing. Righttostel (talk) 10:54, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * delete doesn't seem to pass WP:CREATIVE. Tetron76 (talk) 11:50, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * delete per nom and Tetron76. No "significant critical attention" beyond some blogs. GcSwRhIc (talk) 12:44, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep his projects have been covered in Wired (magazine), G4's Attack of the Show,Entertainment Weekly, Cracked.com, Midwest Book Review these aren't just "some blogs", along with the many other sources. As per the last AfD (which resulted in keep) he has won awards from two film festivals and has documented work with Miramax. He's obviously notable within his field to be a featured guest at both New York Comic Con, Sci-Fi-London and Dragon Con - three of the largest sci-fi / fantasy events in the world. He has also received local coverage in a number of cities where he's held events (as per sources) and done work. So he has awards, national press, blog references, is recognized as a speaker in his field of work, reviews from credible third party sources, and he consistently keeps gaining coverage! This is insane and I suspect that the nomination was in bad faith!!!!--Wikimegamaster 18:45, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't comment on the nomination reasons but the article as written does not include refs to establish WP:BIO. He has not appeared in wired magazine underwire is a separate blog . Cracked.com doesn't even mention him, I find 0 matches for his name on Entertainment weekly , The midwest book review does 450 books a month doesn't establish noability of book let alone author. The New York Comic Con doesn't show him as a ever having been a guest  and doesn't automatically confer notability since it invites large numbers of guests. Dragon con has 198 guests so far confirmed for 2011 and you can apply to add yourself , scifi London at least gives a passing mention  but it is because they are screening his film. The independent on the refs is not The Independent, The illusion channel screening doctor who is also not exactly ground breaking Watch (TV Channel). In short the references don't check out despite being over 30 as regards notability, nullifying your argument.Tetron76 (talk) 14:48, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep as/per Wikimegamaster 72.76.137.201 (talk) 01:04, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * speedy keep I'm the main editor of this article, Torchwoodwho. I had scrambled my password after an unsuccessful RFA. I never thought I would see such a well referenced article gain deletion support at AfD! I'm shocked. There are references that span genre and mainstream sources at major outlets and smaller outlets, with many more easily found linked at the subject's own website. It couldn't be easier to pass WP:GNG. I also think that the nom is in bad faith and wonder why this wasn't speedy kept. The subject has a varied history that doesn't fit any one specific guideline, but does should be obviously notable due to the extensive available references. 166.216.162.68 (talk) 01:43, 11 April 2011 (UTC) Torchwoodwho
 * The article does have some style problems that make it much more difficult to navigate and the number references are misleading due to the lack of coverage of the subject and for people outside of the US it is far from clear what specifically his claim to notability even is in your opinion. Try google news archives for sources instead there may be someTetron76 (talk) 14:48, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Followed up on the links and in my opinion it still only leaves marginal notability by proxy so he is still a way off achieving the wikipedia.Tetron76 (talk) 15:04, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you may have a reading comprehension issue as the subject spoke ad a oanelist on digital cinema at sci-fi london in 2009 and is returning again in 2011 with a film. Also he recently participated in the we heart japan event alongside Edgar Right. Also the number of guests at any given event doesn't reduce the event's status same goes for midwest book review... It's still a major review market like publisher's weekly. Festival awards be damned too right? 166.216.162.80 (talk) 15:46, 11 April 2011 (UTC) The artist formerly known as Torchwoodwho.
 * hmm your right I obviously misread WP:CREATIVE,WP:BIO, WP:RSTetron76 (talk) 16:40, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It takes a big person to admit they made a mistake. I appreciate you taking that position. On the project I know it's hard to say you're wrong. I need to find a barnstar for you. Thanks for reconsidering. 166.216.162.186 (talk) 19:31, 11 April 2011 (UTC) The artist formerly known as Torchwoodwho
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. I'm not sure what article the first two deleters are reviewing, but it cannot possibly be this one.  PlusPlusDave (talk) 23:49, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak delete per Tetron76. It would be help if somebody would clean up the entries in the reference list that no longer work. For example, reference 3 pointing to a New York Comic Con biography seems not to work. Some of the entries seem to be little more than reprinted press releases. The article credits him with inventing the term 'ecopunk' but the reference for that turns out to be a personal blog, probably not suitable. Midwest Book Review has the air of being a self-published personal project. It is not clear to me that anything can be learned about Illusion On-Demand,  a 'science fiction channel with a large national footprint,' except from its own press releases, which are not reliable sources. Routine reprinting of those press releases by various services doesn't increase their value. From this we learn that Illusion TV  co-sponsored an award at a festival in 2008. The channel may no longer be on the air, if you look at its website. If the article is kept, it should be trimmed to what can be reliably sourced. Dreyer does make appearances at various festivals. I don't know if that is enough to pass WP:CREATIVE. Lack of press coverage in actual newspapers is a concern, and the fact that his movies never seem to be shown in regular theaters or reviewed by regular film critics. EdJohnston (talk) 14:18, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It's still on TV, I just fucking watched it! Reliable source is my god damned cable box. There's a word I saw here called recentism. Look it up.


 * Keep: I don't even understand what the nomination is saying, suggesting the subject does too many different things to be notable? That's why new account noms are often bad, they don't understand the policies under which AfD operates.  Anyhoo, sources are sufficient enough to demonstrate notability.  Not super famous, but enough.--Milowent • talkblp-r  10:17, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep with the admission that the sourcing present in this article is terrible, only a single reference of the thirty-some odd addresses all the requirements of a source to apply towards WP:GNG. However,  and  are two reliable sources which provide in-depth coverage of the article subject.  --joe deckertalk to me 19:17, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Snowball Keep on the basis of an incoherent nomination. Article appears to be both well sourced and notable.  Move along, nothing to see here.Vulcan&#39;s Forge (talk) 19:30, 21 April 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.