Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Alden Milne


 * 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. J04n(talk page) 17:14, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

John Alden Milne

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Poorly referenced and semi-advertorialized article, started as an WP:AUTOBIO by the subject himself, about a filmmaker whose strongest claim of notability is making films that have screened at the local film festival in his own hometown with very little evidence of any wider distribution or media attention. The fact that he and his films exist is not an automatic WP:CREATIVE pass for a filmmaker, however -- he has to have enough reliable source coverage about him to clear WP:GNG, but apart from a few pieces of local media coverage in his own hometown, the only other references here are unreliable sources and glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage about a band he did a music video for. This is not enough coverage to get him over GNG, nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to get over GNG, and even people who do have a clear pass of our notability standards still don't get to start their article themselves per our conflict of interest rules. Bearcat (talk) 17:21, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

First of all I am a Canadian film and indie music fan and not related to the subject. The feature film mentioned has been picked up for distribution and as such, will ultimately be reviewed and will receive additional coverage. The subject has numerous references including an article from a national magazine that has been inexplicably deleted. User:Thomsonobrien
 * I wasn't talking about you — you did not create this article, User:Johnaldenmilne did. And the notability criterion for films is not "will ultimately be reviewed and will receive additional coverage", either — it's that enough coverage to clear WP:GNG already exists. We don't extend notability on the basis of predictions — we determine notability on the basis of what is already reliably sourceable as already true. Bearcat (talk) 18:05, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 18:05, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 18:05, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   07:35, 7 May 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   08:35, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep he and his partner have received substantial coverage and he's been awarded recognition at regional film festivals. I think it's enough. FloridaArmy (talk) 20:42, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Received substantial coverage where, given that a small smattering of hometown coverage alone is not enough to get a person over WP:GNG all by itself if he has no claim of extralocal notability at all? "Recognition at one regional film festival in the filmmaker's own hometown" is not an automatic free pass over WP:CREATIVE for a filmmaker whose films have never verifiably screened anywhere beyond that one film festival alone. Bearcat (talk) 00:32, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * "Evidence of attention by regional media is a strong indication of notability." He's had entire bylined articles about him and his work and has won regional awards for his films and muaic videos. It's not some minor locality of a few thousands but a city of more than 100,000 people. There are many countries that size. FloridaArmy (talk) 01:23, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * No, it isn't — notability per WP:CREATIVE requires some evidence of wider attention beyond just the confines of a creative professional's own hometown. If a bit of local coverage were all it took, we'd have to keep an article about every person who ever won a high school poetry contest but had no nationalized claim to passing WP:AUTHOR, every band that ever played their local pub but never actually passed WP:NMUSIC for anything, everybody who ever exhibited their pottery at a local artisan's fair, and on and so forth. For a filmmaker, "notable because awards" attaches to awards on the level of the Academy Awards, the BAFTAs or the Canadian Screen Awards, not to every "Best Local Film" award at every second-tier film festival in every filmmaker's own hometown. And you might want to peruse Talk:Greater Sudbury, wherein I reveal something you probably didn't know about me, if you think you have any chance of ever schoolin' me anything I didn't already know about it. Bearcat (talk) 18:27, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

A colleague who worked on the feature film Savage Tales, which Bearcat had deleted, just shared that the film received a distribution offer and an announcement will be made. Generally, reviews will follow. It often takes 2 years from screening (even at a "second-tier festival") to distribution. Milne is also a Toronto bred and based filmmaker and your comment is offensive comparing the work of a professional filmmaker (who brought a high level of skill to "the North" working on large format films) with high school poetry, local pub bands and potters. The need to win an Oscar or CSA in order to be a noted Canadian filmmaker is incredibly narrow and biased. The article needs to be edited yes but deletion is an extreme and premature measure. User:Thomsonobrien  —Preceding undated comment added 02:17, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The notability test for a filmmaker is not what might happen in the future, and neither is anybody's personal opinion about the quality of his work relevant at all — the notability test is "a WP:GNG-satisfying volume of reliable source coverage already exists, about him already having accomplished something that already passes WP:CREATIVE today". If all we had to do to keep an article was predict that somebody might pass a notability criterion in the future that they haven't already passed yet as of today, then we'd have to keep an article about every single person who exists at all, because absolutely everybody could make that exact same claim. Wikipedia is not a free public relations database to help aspiring future notables promote themselves — notability is determined by the significance of the accomplishments, and the depth of sourceability, that are already true today, not by what a person might accomplish in the future. If and when one or more of his films actually get commercial distribution, and enough coverage of him actually materializes accordingly to get him over GNG, then an article about him can be recreated because the notability equation will have changed — but for him to have an article today, we can only evaluate the significance and sourceability of what's already true today, and nothing that's already true today gets him over CREATIVE or GNG yet. Bearcat (talk) 16:17, 16 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Deb (talk) 08:46, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Local sources only. PhilKnight (talk) 23:52, 22 May 2018 (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.