Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kosta Nikas


 * 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. There seems to be wide agreement that the article in its current state doesn't adequately indicate how Nikas meets our notability criteria. This is not a statement on the quality of his work. As User:AS_Sydney has indicated a desire to keep working on the article, I have moved it to Draft:Kosta Nikas for further improvements, however it should not be moved back into mainspace without some form of community review (WP:AFC or WP:DRV, etc). Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:56, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Kosta Nikas
Non-notable director, what sources are in the article consist of press releases and imdb.com entries. Note that the "feature film directorial debut" mentioned in the lead has virtually no coverage of its own outside social media and an official website link that opens to a default page. The award from the LA Shorts Fest (an article tagged for dubious notability issues at present) does not appear to be sufficiently noteworthy. Perhaps if there was any coverage at all in reliable secondary sources it could contribute, but on its own is insufficient. Tarc (talk) 12:53, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. &mdash;&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T&middot;E&middot;C) 01:32, 16 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I think this is one of the inherent difficulties with Wiki - you spend more time dealing with the actions of editors who haven't really taken a look to see that the same thing has been done a couple of times and so I spent a whole weekend trying to establish this page and I am mid-way through upgrading sources,partiuallyy to satisfy some of your concerns. Even worse, if you were able to look up the LA Shorts Fest sourcing, surely you could have upgraded the source yourself instead of creating unnecessary extra admin - please hold your fire until I've attended to this please. AS_Sydney (talk) 00:55, 16 July 2015 (UTC) Note: AS_Sydney is the creator of this article.


 * Whether the subject's film won this "Shorts" award isn't a point of contention, the problem is that the award itslef is not a notable one. More editing will not change that. Tarc (talk) 01:41, 16 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I should add that the Award IS actually notable - in fact the award is so notable that winning it makes you eligible to be nominated for the Oscars - do you understand that? I will be updating the LA Shorts wiki entry -- Can we now please shit this ridiculous conversation and remoive the tag on the article? AS_Sydney (talk) 09:13, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry - you're argument is simply nonsensical. In your opinion, the award is not notable, but I think that's based on your own views rather than a lack of credible sources. Of course your perception of it being "not notable" can be addressed with more editing. Editing includes the upgading of sources, which I am in the process of doing. This has taken me some time due to interference from editors who I'm sure are well-meaning but simply duplicate the wayward assertions of the previous. AS_Sydney (talk) 05:51, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Tarc, I don't know how you can be so assertive and so ignorant at the same time on a subject. So far I have discovered sourced and upgraded refs on LA Shorts Fest wikipedia page - mind you, one reputable and authoritative periodical, Movie Maker magazine reported way back in 2009 that the LA Shorts Fest had (and this was six years ago) sent 33 short filmmakers to the Oscars as nominees with 9 of them claiming the golden statuette. It doesn't matter that you reside on a far and distant planet Tarc - based on what I've just highlighted, this is a NOTABLE film festival. Please put your energies into perhaps doing some homework rather than tearing down the work of other unpaid, initially-enthusiastic editors such as myself because you make their lives a nightmare. Right then, I'm wrapping this discussion and removing the speedy deletion take. Thankyou AS_Sydney (talk) 14:43, 17 July 2015 (UTC)


 * You will not be removing any deletion tag from any article, I'm afraid. Once nominated, a discussion usually stays open for 7 days, giving other editosd a chance to weigh in.  IMO, the work done is squeezing blood from a stone, and we're still at the same point; winning a minor award and insufficient coverage in reliable sources.  Might want to think about toning down the uppity language as well, this is not a battleground. Tarc (talk) 14:49, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Well no, you're not listening. And I have to say, I'm not intending to isolate you or attack you but as a newish editor, I cannot believe the trigger happiness here. The award was not minor as it also made him eligible for an Oscars nomination. By the way, I'm not a full time wikipedian, this upgrading is still in progress and I do it when I get the opportunity. AS_Sydney (talk) 15:46, 17 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 16 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. I can't see that it meets WP:DIRECTOR. Closer to meeting WP:GNG, but best coverage is for receiving some questionable funding from a government department. I do note that article has only been recently created, and I'd be more than willing to change my vote if some quality 3rd party coverage was found.Doctorhawkes (talk) 06:46, 19 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I read those articles insider out Doctorhawkes and there is NO questionable funding although it appears obvious that's the impression the reporting is meant to make. I'm strongly of the view it is not only baseless, but also legally contentious. AS_Sydney (talk) 06:40, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi DOctorhawkes - please go easy and don't undo the hard work i've put in finding additional sources. AS_Sydney (talk) 17:01, 21 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. Many of the original concerns expressed by Tarc have now been addressed I feel. I have put considerable effort into upgrading sourcing on the article and also attended to some flimsy sourcing on the LA Shorts Fest article which after quite a bit of research appears to indeed be one of the well regarded, Academy-recognised annual festivals  14.00            and one of the longest running and this is one clear example that importance does not necessarily mean a glut of published stories. I still have a couple of minor tweas to attend to there, but I hope you'll agree there's a considerable improvement. Many of the IMDB references have been substituted or supplemented. Also, - if we are to accept that the Academy (of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences) Awards are the ultimate in terms of populist honours for filmmakers, then the list of  qualifying film festivals   14.00            - of which LA Shorts Fest has been a long-term inclusion, can surely not be disregarded. AS_Sydney (talk) 06:40, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete promo advert of one-movie film director who doesn't pass WP:FILMMAKER, most refs in the article are trivial mentions, so he doesn't pass WP:GNG either. The award from the LA Shorts Fest (for "Best Experimental Light") is not something that confers notability under WP:ANYBIO #1 . Notability is not established by name-dropping. Kraxler (talk) 22:50, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

In 2010, MovieMaker magazine reported that a total of 33 LA Shorts Fest winners had earned Academy Award nominations, with 11 filmmakers taking home the Oscar[7] According to Film Festival Life, LA Shorts Fest is the only film festival with seven award categories recognised by the Academy Awards. It reported this year that a total of 44 LA Shorts Fest winners have progressed through to become Academy Award nominees, with 14 filmmakers taking home an Oscar.[8] AS_Sydney (talk)
 * Keep - The "promo advert" comment. In fact, it's far from a promo advert because a person - me - is working on it not only voluntarily, but also at great opportunity cost as this is a very time-consuming process. Your opinion that things are trivial are not helpful. I don't follow the logic that a festival that has been long established and an Academy Awards-accredited benchmark for Oscar nominees as well as a BAFTA (that's the British equivalent if you didn't know)-accredited benchmark for its awards could not be notable. This is from LA Shorts Fest article:


 * You can make all the follow-up comments you like, but please do not vote for a second time. I have struck trough the "Keep", above. Tarc (talk) 12:30, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * RE AS_Sydney. Has Kosta Nikas's short movie been nominated for the Oscar? It' doesn't matter how many others got nominated, notablity is not determined by association, friendship, acquaintance or name-dropping. The festival was founded in 1997, it's quite recent and rather unknown to the broad public. A "trivial mention" is a notability criterion, not a statement that the subject is trivial. It means that the subject is mentioned somewhere (to illustrate a point, or giving an opinion) in a text about a different subject. Please read WP:GNG. Kraxler (talk) 13:36, 23 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete From what I can see, the subject has created one film, which has won an award at a festival whose notability has been questioned. The film or the director have not actually received Oscar or BAFTA nominations (being eligible to be nominated is not the same thing), and certainly has not won any Oscar or BAFTA award. Of course, if it has actually been nominated for one of those, then that would help show notability of the film - but I can't find it listed anywhere as nominated. As such, the film does not appear to meet Wikipedia's notability criteria, and neither does this director.  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 11:48, 24 July 2015 (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.