Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leo Lebeau


 * 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. While the participation of new editors is always appreciated, their views are given little weight due to their tendency towards unfamiliarity with Wikipedia standards for inclusion. Furthermore, citation to blogs and other self-published or user-editable websites, primary sources, and other non-reliable sources weakens rather than strengthening the argument for inclusion. BD2412 T 05:47, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Leo Lebeau

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Falls below the standards for notability for film producers and directors in WP:DIRECTOR. QuiteUnusual (talk) 09:43, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:04, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:04, 2 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete a non-notable filmmaker.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:10, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Significant director/ producer graduating from top film school, many notable connections and backed by BAFTA. User:JamesBellArt 16:50, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Quick google search shows notable. Questionable that John Pack Lambert supports man/woman marriage only and suggests deleting a well cited LGBT person's page. Worth noting that John Pack Lambert has also been called out on multiple AfDs for his lack of helpful contributions to the discussion.Linda Saunders (talk) 22:00, 7 March 2021 (UTC) — Linda Saunders (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Making an ad hominem attack against another editor does not help support the case for keeping an article. Google results do not do that either particularly when the top 50 results are self created sources (like IMDB and a Facebook page) rather than independent reliable sources. I suggest you check the notability standard and use that as a basis for your argument. I also note that Leo Lebeau and one "James Bell" have worked together before suggesting a conflict of interest in the creation of the article - which I will tag accordingly. Thanks. QuiteUnusual (talk) 22:44, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Confirming that I do not represent James Bell mentioned, and have requested a username change to reflect this and clear up confusion over possible COI. top 50 results are self created sources (like IMDB and a Facebook page) rather than independent reliable sources This is untrue. Third google result is reputable Bafta.org, and further top 50 results results include independent media sources, not only self-created pages as implied. Notability standards guidance states a creative professional should have a substantial part of a significant exhibition or (c) won significant critical attention which Lebeau has both, including multiple links to BAFTA, Warner Bros and premiere status of his film Sugarbabies. His page has been updated to further reflect this since being flagged for possible deletion. I do not believe that a strong enough argument has been made for deleting this page. User:JamesBellArt (talk) 23:42, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Response Here are 9 results found when searching him. None of these are self-made. Lebeau is notable enough to meet WP:DIRECTOR. I still support to keep.

LindaSaunders (talk) 02:20, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * These are just the same, non-notability lending links from the article. Is there any real press coverage from major news sources about this guy? Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:04, 9 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete Yes BAFTA is a significant organization, but the BAFTA links are not significant coverage. One of the references doesn't even mention LeBeau in any context other than him being in one of the photos. Best, GPL93 (talk) 01:25, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Regarding the BAFTA links are not significant coverage. One of the references doesn't even mention LeBeau in any context other than him being in one of the photos. Please back up this claim. To my knowledge, all BAFTA coverage does directly refer to and cover Lebeau including and . The page also cites multiple other secondary sources that support points made about Lebeau. Lebeau is an accomplished director/producer, alumni of the NFTS and currently working for very significant organization Pink News. He may be early in his career but is clearly notable with recognized achievements that count towards significant critical attention. Please reconsider, or advise how the page can be improved. Deletion does not appear to be a well-argued and fair decision.User:JamesBellArt (talk) 06:27, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, to start neither link is actually even coverage nor is it independent as they are both just profiles for a scholarship recipient. And this is the reference that doesn't even mention LeBeau and some of these are IMDB pages for completely different people. You keep on saying that arguments aren't "well-argued", then show us the significant critical attention. Show us the significant awards LeBeau has won, show us the in-depth articles] by Reliable sources about him and stop WP:BLUDGEONing. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:07, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * JamesBellArt, please note that you cannot make a person notable by referencing claims about him to the self-published websites of people or organizations directly affiliated with the claims. A person is not notable for getting a BAFTA scholarship just because you can reference the statement to a PDF interview with him on BAFTA's own website — to make that a notability claim, you have to show that media outlets, such as real newspapers and/or the BBC, have deemed that accomplishment significant enough to do journalism treating "Leo Lebeau gets BAFTA scholarship" as a news story. And on and so forth — the notability test does not hinge on the ability to use primary sources and directory entries as verification that he's done stuff, it hinges on the extent to which the stuff he's done has or hasn't led journalists to bestow coverage about him and his accomplishments upon him in media outlets. Bearcat (talk) 01:50, 11 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep This guy seems notable enough to be included here on wiki, and from what I’m seeing does meet the terms of WP:DIRECTOR as a creative professional. It’s clear this guy has achieved significant critical attention in creative fields. Ran a search and found extra sources referencing his BAFTA scholarship which itself is significant. He’s a keeper., Stuhunter83 (talk) 22:52, 9 March 2021 (UTC) — Stuhunter83 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Exactly which WP:NDIRECTOR qualifications dos Lebeau meet? Also both references that you provided are press releases in which he is one of eleven scholarship recipients so I'd say that they detract from the claim that receiving a BAFTA film scholarship is of enough significance to pass notability standards. GPL93 (talk) 01:51, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Critical attention as mentioned. Articles actually state that he is one of three to receive a Prince William Scholarship. I would suggest to research coverage more deeply in future, so that you are not misleading other users. You are entitled to your opinion, but this is now an opinion I see you are repeatedly stating with nothing additional to add. It appears you may have some agenda here, it comes across that you are trying to intimidate users by bludgeoning the process. Please stop.WP:BLUDGEON Stuhunter83 (talk) 10:06, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  EN  - Jungwon  07:40, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment The attempt to use another editors political positions to exclude his views on keeping an article is clearly wrong and should be shot down immediately. I have a right to favor a definition of marriage that is in the best interest of children and editor above will not silence me.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:54, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment While I strongly disagree with John Pack Lambert personal views I will state I have seen him vote keep before on the articles of LGBT people that meet notability criteria in the past . Here is a critical look at the references from the article. We should start off the bat by pointing out that references 8, 14, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 26, and 28 have zero mention of Lebeau whatsoever. 10 and 12 are his own films and 11 is a trailer to one of his films. 8 and 9 are profiles from a talent management site and IMDBD. 1 is from BAFTA's website (Not independent from the subject nor RS coverage) profiling a scholarship winner and 7 is a similar profile ; 2 is simply a list of employees at Pink News and 4 is a list of alumni from the Warner Brothers UK Creative Talent Program; 3 is a press release naming him among scholarship recipients; 13 has only Lebeau listed as being in a photograph with no mention in the coverage itself; 5 appears to be a member profile from a club. 15 lists one of Lebeau's shorts among several dozen others (also does not appear to be from a reliable source); 16 is press release from NFTS; 21 is coverage from a non-RS blog; 24 and 29 are from one of his film's websites; 27 is a profile of an actress on a talent agency website. When you peel away the WP:REFBOMBing there really isn't much there. Best, GPL93 (talk) 13:23, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Your comment comes across as an attempt to manipulate fellow readers to agree with John and vote to delete rather than keep this page. Please remain factual and avoid discussing what you may or may not have seen. Again I would also ask that you stop WP:BLUDGEONING and remember that Wikipedia is not about WP:WINNING. Stuhunter83 (talk) 23:41, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd say casting aspersions that another editor's vote is tainted is also manipulative. Given that you have taken issue with it I have retracted that part of the above statement. GPL93 (talk) 23:59, 10 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment / Response Nobody has tried to silence you John. You, however, have commented delete without bothering to argue your point. Something I’ve seen you do on multiple articles. If anything, you are the one that is trying to silence an editor, not to mention an LGBT filmmaker that seems to tackle issues you openly disagree with. What does stating your beliefs to be in the best interest of children, have to do with this review for deletion? This definitely feels like WP:DLC and WP:CSB.


 * GPL93 your attempt to defend him, without evidence, makes me question your own intentions here.


 * Now let’s start with your attempt to discredit this editor’s page. The majority of your issues seem to be with page citations that are clearly placed to support points made. So many of your claims are once again false. Your tendency to skim over citations means that you have missed many mentions of Lebeau. A simple exploration of 14, for example, shows that Leo was nominated for Best Director, Best Screenplay and Winner for Festival Director’s Choice. 19 mentions a connection to his film Birthday Boy. 23 mentions him as Director. 11 is indeed a trailer, but references that he is a graduating member of the NFTS in support of the claim made on the article. Should the editor not support his claims? 8 is not a Talent Management site but a hugely notable Production Company. 5 is appears to be a feature from an independent film publication, not a club. 15 is where I find your thoughts particularly confusing, as the page is obviously a reliable LGBT film review website. Lebeau’s short is even listed under ‘some of the biggest LGBT shorts’... what is your issue here? 16 is not just a press release, but an announcement of Lebeau’s project being selected for a significant collaboration between Kickstarter and one of the most reputable film schools in the world (common knowledge for anyone in the industry). 21 is an independent arts and culture media outlet, not a blog. 2 is not just a list of employees at the very significant Pink News, but a list that features Lebeau in the notable position of a Producer. 1 is coverage from BAFTA which quite frankly says it all, and 7 is a full feature and interview from BAFTA discussing his films! Throwing in a WP:REFBOMB claim does not make it so.


 * I believe that you are continually jumping the gun, as a deeper look shows that your claims are not well versed in facts.


 * Understandably, this could be down to a WP:LACK on your side. If so, might I suggest stepping back and allowing others to comment, rather than coming back with the same opinions over and over as though they are somehow superior. WP:ZEALOUS. LindaSaunders (talk) 01:13, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * None of the BAFTA coverage is independent, nor are WP:INTERVIEWs. I am aware that NFTS is a reputable school but when it says "contact the PR director" at the bottom it's clearly a press release and not reliable, nor are school communications considered RS. Last I checked a producer was still an employee and he is listed along with other employees. Even if Pink Lens is notability lending WP:LISTICLE depreciates notability. An "Independent arts and culture media outlet" can definitely still be considered a blog. I have yet to find any press coverage of either festival so how significant winning an award from one is I am unable to tell. A passing mention of being a director for a film that has not been deemed notable does not lend notability. Also turns out we are BOTH wrong regarding Talent Manager, which it turns out is an EMPLOYMENT SITE for the industry. BTW I worked for a film production company running their digital coming out of grad school so I am not quite as WP:LACKing as you might assume. You say I am jumping the gun, but I'm not. Going to a good film school and receiving a prestigious scholarship does not mean you are notable. Neither he, nor his works, nor even the festivals from which he has won awards from have really any significant coverage from reliable sources. After reading your response, I reached out to an admin who edits a lot in the area of film to see if I was missing anything or misunderstanding the references. But he seems to have reached a similar conclusion regarding notability and the referencing.  Best, GPL93 (talk) 01:49, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * LindaSaunders, making a person notable is not a question of using primary sources to verify facts — it's a question of whether media outlets have or haven't published journalistic content and analysis about said facts. News articles about him written in the third person, critical reviews of his films by established film critics, and on and so forth. It cannot be supported by the self-published websites of organizations directly affiliated with the claims, or by blogs, or by social networking content, or by Q&A interviews in which he's talking about himself in the first person, or by the IMDb profiles of him, his films or his colleagues: nothing you can say about him constitutes a notability claim until you can show that journalists have deemed that thing significant enough to write and publish content about it in major media outlets like The Times, Screen Daily, Variety or the BBC. Bearcat (talk) 02:26, 11 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment The IMDB page for the director's film Sugarbabies shows that LeBeau won the Director's Choice Award and was nominated for Best Director and Best Screenplay (and an actress was nominated for Best Supporting Actress) at something called the Rainbow Umbrella Film Festival. It also shows that LeBeau won Best Director and Gold Medal - Shorter Short at something called the UK Seasonal Short Film Festival.  Obviously this needs to be confirmed from reliable sources, which IMDB is not.  Aside from confirming that the RUFF is a real thing, I can't find much information on it or confirm the awards, but perhaps someone else can find more info?  I was able to find a little more info on the UK Seasonal Short Film Festival, but again unable to confirm the award results.  If these results can be confirmed from RS, would this be useful in confirming notability per WP:Director prong 4 (b) or (c)? Hyperion35 (talk) 23:51, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No, it likely wouldn't. Notability on NDIRECTOR grounds does not just freely attach to every single award at every film festival that exists — for one thing, there's actually this whole wacky circuit out there of fake "film festivals" that really don't screen films for the public at all, but instead exist solely to allow emerging filmmakers to buy themselves an "award" so that they can advertise their film as an "award winner" for PR purposes. I'm not saying that "Rainbow Umbrella" and "UK Seasonal Short Film Festival" are part of that, but I'm not saying that they're not — we simply don't know one way or the other absent sources. As films and their makers go, notability on award grounds attaches to top-level national film awards and/or a fairly narrow elite tier of major film festivals (Cannes, TIFF, Berlinale, Sundance, etc.) that get broad media coverage, and not to just every award at just every film festival that exists. You're correct that it's media coverage that makes the difference, not just the presence of the word "award" in the text per se. Bearcat (talk) 02:11, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 00:05, 11 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete. As I noted above, notability is not a question of what the article says a person accomplished — it's a question of how much journalism has or hasn't been done by real reliable source media outlets, such as real newspapers and/or the BBC, about the things he's done. There's not a single footnote here that actually helps to get him over WP:GNG, however: every single footnote is primary sourcing (directory entries, the self-published websites of directly affiliated organizations, etc.) and/or social networking content, and not even one of them represents a real reliable source media outlet writing about him or his work in a notability-building way. Notability requires media to bestow significance on him and his work by writing about him journalistically — critical reviews of his films, news stories about him and his work, etc. — and is not a thing people are automatically entitled to just because they have profiles on IMDb, or get posted about on the Twitter, Facebook or Instagram accounts of their own colleagues, or show press releases from directly affiliated organizations, or have a staff profile in the staff directory of their own employer. It's real journalism in real media, or bust. Bearcat (talk) 02:11, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Every single so-called reference is useless. The best of the lot is a BAFTA interview, but interviews don't help at all with verification. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:08, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 13:08, 14 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete - clearly doesn't meet WP:NCREATIVE, and not enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to pass WP:GNG.  Onel 5969  TT me 15:46, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:Too soon He's accomplished a lot at a young age, but the WP:Notability in multiple WP:RS just isn't there (that I could find).  7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 19:15, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep The arguments for delete mostly mention the weakness on references, but most of the citations do pass on WP:QUESTIONABLE and WP:SELF. They are not just social media links, as this discussion initially lead me to believe. The article itself seems nicely written and neutral, about someone that is notable meeting latter terms of WP:CREATIVE and likely on the verge of becoming much more so. Agreed it could be argued as WP:TOOSOON but still seems worthy of keeping, I’d say. What else could be done instead of deleting? LeeArran64 (talk) 16:34, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Nobody said the references were all social media links. But another thing the references also aren't is reliable source coverage in real media. Bearcat (talk) 22:11, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I felt bullied into giving up on defending my article, after being accused of WP:BLUDGEONing by GPL93. Now I come back to see that the two of you (who are self-confessed mates) have been repeating the same things over and over beneath almost all opposing comments - so why should I not be allowed to argue my own points? You both come across as highly contentious editors. It continues to feel like there is an attempt to scare off anyone that has a differing point of view. I won't even comment on the shocking homophobic remark left by John Pack Lambert that in my view should not even be allowed on Wikipedia. I understand that you believe Lebeau’s achievements are not notable enough, but how you’ve come to some of your conclusions is less clear to me. I’ve searched but can not find in any Wiki guidelines a reference to citations needing to be specific to BBC, The Times, etc. Not once have I referenced Facebook or Twitter in my article, so again I’m unsure why you’ve even mentioned these platforms. Nor did I only reference his BAFTA interview for his BAFTA and Prince William scholarships. Actually that interview was cited to support his mentorship with Helen Soden, who is a Royal Television society winner, BAFTA and Emmy nominee. I felt it was something worthy of note for the page. Forgive me if that was wrong. I still feel strongly that my article is worthy of keeping, meets some criteria WP:DIRECTOR and that Wikipedia and its readers will be losing out by having the page deleted. Whatever decision is ultimately made, I do wish that a fairer, more neutral debate could have taken place. Eiko237 (talk) 23:56, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Hi Bearcat and thanks for your comments. I wasn’t sure where to respond to this, as you’ve repeated the same thing beneath multiple parts of the discussion. I believe, however, that the right thing to do is place this after the relist, as was requested by Jungwon.
 * and I are not "mates". I asked him to analyze sources because after being accused of mistaking clear non-WP:RS sources because I don't understand the industry and he edits a lot in the area of film. I have asked other editors to give an opinion on sourcing as well (here's an example) and there have been times where I have asked Bearcat to take a look at sources and didn't receive a reply back. Also, if you want to talk about what is "fair" and "neutral" why did your original username match that of the person who posts updates on the website of one of Lebeau's films? I understand you denied having a COI originally but pardon me if I have my skepticism given that choosing the name of a coworker (or boss?) and then writing about said coworker is generally a pretty good COI indicator in my experience. Also note that all the editors with significant editing history ALL have come to the same conclusion about the sources. GPL93 (talk) 00:58, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Eiko, firstly: notability for Wikipedia's purposes requires a person to have been the subject of media coverage in real media outlets and books. There is no such thing as notability without journalism and/or analysis. The reason I named some specific examples of media outlets isn't that notability can only come from those specific media outlets and no others — but it still has to come from media outlets of that ilk. Not blogs, not the self-published websites of himself, his friends or organizations he's directly affiliated with, not the catalogues of film festivals, not social media, not press releases: journalism, in real media outlets, which report his accomplishments as news and/or analyze the significance of his work (e.g. critical reviews of his films). You can read our rules about reliable sources if you need some clarity. Bearcat (talk) 02:21, 18 March 2021 (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.