Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JC Crissey


 * 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. Stifle (talk) 10:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, that should have been a delete. I omitted to account for the fact that two keep recommendations were from IPs, probably the same person, and a third was from a new user. Stifle (talk) 11:45, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

JC Crissey

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Proposed for deletion because "No evidence that he is in any way notable. Co-producer for four movies, none of them partuclarly notable in themselves. No good sources could be found through Google News or Books, and not that many through regular Google search either. Fails WP:BIO." ProD removed because "notable producer of Blinded (2004 film)" However, he was an "associate producre", according to IMDb, not the producer or an executive producer. Not one article about "Blinded" mentioned Crissey, while there are e.g. 7 Google news hits for Blinded plus the actual producer Van Heek. No evidence of him being notable could be found. Fram (talk) 09:05, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - no coverage in reliable sources -- Whpq (talk) 16:22, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - well known in england and scotland -- co-producer role for three films, equal to exec producer or more --134.219.102.208 (talk) 21:25, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Is there any coverage in reliable sources to confirm any of this? -- Whpq (talk) 23:15, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep - Clearly notable. Coverage in reliable sources is found in the references already in article. Others can be found here and elsewhere if one would take the time to look. Gorrad (talk) 00:04, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - The link you provided is to a directory of films currently being made. That doesn't establish notability.  I have taken the time to look and found no coverage about him, so if you know of this coverage, presenting it here would be useful. -- Whpq (talk) 10:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - More references found and posted of films previously made. Loads more if willing to go past several google page searches. BAFTA reference cannot be verified, but that is because members lists are not made public. Strong co-producer credits on at least four films, some award winning. Only updating cuz person known in UK independent film. Should keep since within wiki rules, unless wiki only want Hollywood famous people. TV films mostly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.219.202.104 (talk) 12:27, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Notable. More references on films and background added. Within wiki rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.219.202.104 (talk)
 * He is mentioned in lists of people who worked on some films. He has not received any attention personally beyond such name entries. He is, despite claims made above, neither notable nor well-known. Fram (talk) 12:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * How can you not recognise his own lifetime BAFTA membership. This is big for British film people. If that is not notable, where the local industry accepts, no wiki film listing other than top US awards will be subject to deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.219.202.104 (talk) 13:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * An IMDB biography is not an independent source, but user submitted. They are not reliable at all. Furthermore, if it was such a big deal, where are the sources about it? Anyway, I have checked, and he is indeed one of the 6500 members of BAFTA. I don't think that being a member of such a large group does make one notable at all. Fram (talk) 07:49, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - Not notable. Sources provided before and after this AfD do not establish notability.    talk 22:35, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Working in a prominent role on notable films, makes you notable. Producers may not get as much press as actors and directors do, but that doesn't mean they aren't notable.  Not as notable as the writers of course, which also don't get much press, despite being the most important people in the film, of course.   D r e a m Focus  01:08, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Producers get enough attention to meet WP:GNG when they are truly notable. I wrote Mark Canton and had no trouble finding the necessary sources. They don't exist for Crissey though, so your keep is rather meaningless (or at least mere opinion, instead of being policy- and guideline-based). Fram (talk) 07:27, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete -Weakly cited to mere mentions in unreliable citations, no value at all. Off2riorob (talk) 17:22, 24 May 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.