Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Great Directors


 * 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   speedy keep- the nominator withdrew the nomination with no arguments for deletion (non-admin close) Guest9999 (talk) 15:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Great Directors

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Does not meet any aspect of WP:FILMNOT. One cited review is not suitably notable. Article isrepeatedly being re-edited into peacock terms. At least one major contributor to the article has a major COI. Etrigan (talk) 18:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC) Withdraw nom for now. On consideration this one may be better treated as a long game, seeing if it remains notable. Etrigan (talk) 07:33, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Ehm, if it is notable now, it is notable forever. -- Cycl o pia talk  12:06, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Ehm, I've seen some long-existing articles deleted because in retrospect they weren't actually notable. I also thing the bar for notability is being set way too low here, esp given the examples on WP:FILMNOT - I think in particular significant coverage is kinda being forgotten about. Etrigan (talk) 22:51, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Ehm, I've seen some long-existing articles deleted because in retrospect they weren't actually notable. : I've also seen a lot of things that violate policies and guidelines, but this doesn't make them less wrong (The only exception I can think is that sources become unavailable in the future and therefore the article becomes suddenly unverifiable). -- Cycl o pia talk  23:38, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think we're talking about two different things - yes, if something is notable it's always notable, but that's a different situation from editors deciding at some point in the future that the originally-deciding group were wrong in their assessment of an article. There's no policy against that happening. Etrigan (talk) 07:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh sure, agree with that. -- Cycl o pia talk  23:34, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep : It has two reviews now, so it somehow passes WP:GNG. Here an Italian article with a full paragraph on the documentary. COI concerns are irrelevant when deciding deletion. -- Cycl o pia  talk  21:18, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Agree that there are major COI and peacock issues (not to mention major cleanup work to be done), but it does meet WP:GNG as this film has received third party coverage. Jminthorne (talk) 00:30, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable per WP:NOTFILM No. 1.--Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 06:53, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 23 June 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.