Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Krishna Stott (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Guerillero Parlez Moi 15:02, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Krishna Stott
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Impressive looking wall of text, this, until you start looking at the sources and then we find ourselves faced by theatre programs, blogs, Facebook pages, owned media, incidental mentions and sources with no link to the subject (the 'I am Kloot' interview doesn't even mention Stott; source 45 - one of a number like this - is a generic article about Whatsapp and totally unrelated in any way to the article subject). Fails WP:GNG and WP:FILMMAKER. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:04, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Artists, Film,  and United Kingdom. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:04, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete I can't quite work out if this is fake or a joke, but there is more text in this article about the subject matter than on the rest of the internet combined.MNewnham (talk) 04:49, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi there – I really tried hard here to make sure I produced an in depth article that was source rich, both with secondary sources, as well as contextual sources. In addition, in preparation for this I explored a lot of transmedia Wikipedia pages seeing what had been flagged on stub articles, and worked to improve some of the Wikipedia media pages for Stott as well. Over the last six months I have watched his visual media and got hold of some of the harder to find transmedia items too. In short, I put a lot of work into this to try and make sure it was fulsome, and not one of those stub items with ‘need more details and sources’ pegged to it! I see commenters have said things like this article uses blog posts and facebook mentions. However, these tend to be used for context and dates of release. There is also secondary sources such as newspapers, The Guardian, Liverpool Echo, The Bolton News; broadcasters, the BBC, industry magazines, such as Pocket Gamer, industry podcasts, such as Conducttr, and academic journals such as Journal of Screenwriting, Screenworks, Journal of Media Practice, as well as conference proceedings. I believe that there should be more representation of emerging artforms on Wikipedia, with their creators given the same depth of coverage as say filmmakers and musicians (which I have previously worked on). Given Stott’s 25 year career, vast mediaography, and awards (inc Webby Awards 2008) I thought the work and profile of this person in the UK artscene context to be an interesting project. I truly tried my best with this, and so am a bit disappointed it has been flagged. I don’t think the perfect should be the enemy of the good, but I also realise that the flagging is coming from a good place to keep Wikipedia the best it can be. In that spirit, if anyone can give me concrete advice how to improve this, I would be very open to that, as while I have been doing Wikipedia updates and page creations for a few years now, given this is just a hobby and a giving back to a resource I use all the time, I am certainly still a beginner, or newbie I guess. Thanks for reading. (User:McrPhilosophy) 11:03, 15 March 2023 (Indonesia) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:27, 17 March 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 11:49, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * 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.