Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deon Taylor


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 07:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Deon Taylor

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non notable bio. No claim to notability. Can find little in terms of reliable publications to constitute having this article. Obviously a COI too. Worthless self-promotion. Dr. Blofeld       White cat 10:25, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Why are you deleting the director if his movies are on wikipedia? I noticed his name was in the movie articles and tagged but he did not have his own page. I am not Deon Taylor, I am not the photographer of Deon Tayler, etc. I am not a shameless self promoter, I am adding the director up of a small indie horror following. There are links to his name on the official list for NBAEL, his own personal interview in this own words for citation purposes, his bio at IMDB.com. Why is that not official enough? Does he need to have a book published on him first? His birth certificate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by CenobiteCreepe (talk • contribs) 16:52, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. is the original editor of the article; this is the editor's first article. —C.Fred (talk) 18:43, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "small indie horror". My point exactly. Shitty low budget film directors with only a handful of credits should not have encyclopedia articles. Dr. Blofeld       White cat 18:03, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * So is Oren Peli, the director of the low budget Paranormal Activity. Still a good movie/director despite being low budget. Chain Letter is being released in theatres August.CenobiteCreepe (talk) 16:06, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. I could not find significant coverage for his work. And to answer your question, CenobiteCreepe, you should read WP:BIO. Erpert (let's talk about it) 17:05, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Allow me to contest the article in that I can find secondary sources. I will add them up Tuesday.CenobiteCreepe (talk) 16:06, 5 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by CenobiteCreepe (talk • contribs) 17:42, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. User:CenobiteCreepe has obvious SPA and COI problems. I could not find independent sources. IMDB does not check facts, and "small indie horror' film does not equate to notability. Racepacket (talk) 17:16, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know what SPA is. I know that COI means that people assume I know Deon Taylor because I uploaded the photo and clicked I had rights to it so it wouldn't be deleted in 7 days. I deleted it and re-uploaded hopefully under proper terms but it says it will still be deleted. I won't put a photo up anymore but I am not the photographer and am not affiliated with the director. I had no idea it would cause that much confusion. Sorry.CenobiteCreepe (talk) 16:06, 5 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by CenobiteCreepe (talk • contribs) 17:42, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * SPA refers to a single-purpose account. I've removed the note labeling your account as single purpose and instead noted that you're a new user and that this is your first article. —C.Fred (talk) 18:43, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete . I don't think there's a COI between CenobiteCreep and the subject, if the photo of Taylor was just uploaded with the wrong license terms. The problem with the article is lack of sourcing: IMDB, another movie website, and one line in a NBAE roster are all this article is hinging on. Unless he's gotten significant coverage in an independent reliable source, then he doesn't deserve an article—at least, not until later in his career, when his films go on to get him that coverage. —C.Fred (talk) 18:41, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep (or worst case, incubate), due to the presentation of new sources. There is a Sac Bee story on the impending national release of Chain Letter. It's eight paragraphs about Taylor, his film, and his company, so I'd say that's significant coverage. The film is due for an August release, so I'd say to err on the side of caution now and keep the article; we can always revisit in November 2010 or February 2011 if we find we've mis-assessed. —C.Fred (talk) 18:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Much appreciated. I'll work on getting more sources up. Thanks to those helping me with my first article.CenobiteCreepe (talk) 19:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  00:46, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete Notability is borderline, but refs are a mess. Hard to verify. It is also written like a 10-year-old was asked to write an autobiography disguised as a biography. Delete unless drastic improvements to refs and notability can be corrected. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 00:53, 11 July 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares
 * There are more atrociously written articles on Wikipedia you could focus on. Like ones with actual spelling errors by 10 year olds. On a lighter note, could you be more specific as to how the references constitute a mess? And are hard to verify? CenobiteCreepe (talk) 02:01, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep but rewrite. As the article creator says, several films by this guy are on the site, and link to this page.  An article being poorly written is not a reason to delete. --khfan93 03:37, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep, borderline but there are enough sources, and AFD is not cleanup. -- Nuujinn (talk) 14:58, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 *  Weak Keep. Seems to be on the threshold of "significant coverage."-- Pink Bull  23:29, 18 July 2010 (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.