Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greg Augustine


 * 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. The assertion that he is "just barely notable" is not enough to outweight the several delete arguments. Kevin (talk) 01:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Greg Augustine

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

no real notability shown, all movies redlinked (including deleted). production company deleted. (yes I contributed to one of those AFDs). after spamming articles are deleted we have two sources which provide no coverage past a trivial mention of Augustine's name. Duffbeerforme (talk) 17:19, 12 October 2009 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 22:20, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as just barely notable enough, despite articles about his projects being themselves deleted. Independent films and independent filmmakers will not get the same press coverage as filmmakers touted by big-budget studios. The coverage and notability of his works is his as the creator of those works Greg Augustine films & reviews in On Milwaukee, Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel. Its just barely enough... but allowing this one to remain and grow serves the project. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 02:47, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW ( Talk ) 21:27, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree with MichaelQSchmidt; I think Augustine has enough coverage to be considered notable as an independent filmmaker. (I might add that it's particularly difficult to find articles on this Greg Augustine due to extensive trivial coverage of Greg Augustine, the stepson of murdered Nevada State Controller Kathy Augustine. But I digress.) A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 04:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Article as it is doesn't establish notability. Two references, no notable works. Lara  21:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - the relevant criteria for filmmakers are at WP:CREATIVE and on any reading of the article Augustine falls far short of meeting any of them. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:58, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The relevent criteria is WP:N of which WP:BIO is a subset. He does have notable works that have themselves been the subject of articles in reliable sources. Issues with the quality of the current article are best addressed with cleanup and expansion... not deletion. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 08:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:N is the criteria for creating a presumption of notability. As WP:MILL points out, obviously a topic can be well documented in independent sources and yet still not be notable (eg individual residential dwellings, suburban restaurants, etc).  WP:CREATIVE provides further guidelines for assessing whether the presumption of notability should be rebutted; the fact he doesn't meet any of those is a strong argument that he's not notable. - DustFormsWords (talk) 20:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I do not belive the the essay WP:Run-of-the-mill applies here, as we're speaking about a person and not an ediface. Yes, thousands of unknown filmmakers create films that no one ever hears about, and yes, those thousands of unknown filmmakers might be considered commonplace... but a filmmaker whose films are publicly screened and whose films receive decent reviews would seem to just tickle over the bar at WP:BIO by squeeking in at WP:GNG with the coverage of his works... barely. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 19:28, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Sounds like a no consensus, default to delete to me, why is it getting relisted? ++Lar: t/c 21:54, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Doesn't sound that way to me. Unless there is some sort of clear BLP violation, non-consensus AfD's usually default to keep per WP:AFD, How an AfD discussion is closed where it states (until someone decides to change it) "If there has been no obvious consensus to change the status of the article, the person closing the AfD will state No consensus, and the article will be kept. Since the subject of the article has not himself come forward to request a deletion of the article, and since notability per sources has not been 100% disproved, and since there is a no consensus, and the encyclopedic article does not violate policy, a keep is the indication per guideline. That it was relisted seems like no one wishes that debate over at Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_policy to spill over to here. NW is showing wisdom. Regards,  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q.  23:27, 26 October 2009 (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.