Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Ferns (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 Keep (non-admin closure). Thank you, Mr. Schmidt. GRuban (talk) 22:54, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Michael Ferns
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

Kept per this discussion a year ago mainly because of the award won, initially assumed to be a BAFTA Award. It's actually a BAFTA Scotland New Talent Award, a separate awards ceremony from the main BAFTA awards and according to the entry criteria it is open only to students and first-time practitioners. On that basis I disagree with the previous conclusion that this meets WP:ANYBIO, the film credits do not meet WP:CREATIVE and the subject does not have coverage in multiple reliable sources, the only WP:RS coverage I can find is from the same local newspaper (the interview in the article is from a blog). The previous content has been removed due to a copyvio but can be seen here. January ( talk ) 19:24, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 22 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment The article has certainly been greatly diminshed since it survived the last AFD, and I will report back after expanding and sourcing it myself per what's available in seaches. A couple quick notes... Sterling Observer is simply the Stirling area edition of Scottish & Universal Newspapers Limited (AKA Trinity Mirror, Britain's biggest newspaper group and publisher of 240 regional papers as well as the national Daily Mirror, Sunday Mirror and People, and the Scottish Sunday Mail, the Scottish Daily Record, and Dumfries & Galloway Standard), and it is to be expected that they would cover topics in their area.  In depth articles in the newspaper expected to cover that area is fine. Notable to Scotland is perfctly fine to en.Wikipedia, and we do not expect worldwide acclaim for a topic deterninable as notable to Scotland. And that BAFTA choses to recognize new talent does not lessen the accolade or its sourcable notability. Lots of comepetion and very few making it through the gauntlet. The award is itself notable as it is an award ONLY for newcomers, not those long establisahed in the industry... established filmmakers have other means of recoginition. We have a demonstrably notable award bestowed by a notable organization and specifically set to recognize New Talent (I am reminded of Young Artist Awards). This meets the criteria of being a notable award per WP:ANYBIO... and ANYBIO does not state that awards specifically intended to award only New Talent are somehow disqualified from meeting its criteria. I'll be back once the article has been rebuilt.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 02:28, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep re-written article. one sentence when nominated. 35x expansion and improvement. No more copyvio. BAFTA Scotland IS the Scottish branch of BAFTA, and as an award from a notable organization, specifically designed to be awarded to New Talent, is an accolade he will never get again... as he is now no longer new talent. That BAFTA Scotland awards Scottish filmmakers in a separate awards ceremony from the main BAFTA awards, underscores notability of the award to Scotland... and with his receiving a well-known and significant award or honor (To Scotland), WP:ANYBIO is met. ANYBIO does not demend nor require the award be world-wide... and notable to Scoltland is fine for en.Wikipedia. And in looking at WP:CREATIVE, his short films have received quite modest attention but his feature film debut Kirk has received enough recognition and commentary for him to meet CREATIVE. Again, there is no mandate that a film receiving significant critical attention be world-wide in that attention. And beyond coverage of this fellow in the Stirling Observer, M. J. Simpson's review of the film is quite in-depth in its analysis of the film and praise of the young filmmaker... so we do have more than just one source speaking about this fellow and his work. We'll doubtless hear even more about Ferns when he gets old enough to leave home. The article is now one that serves the project and its readers and will be continually improved over time and through regular editing as his career grows.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 20:17, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep: Per my comments in the previous AfD. Truth be told, I'm curious as to where in WP:CREATIVE there's a specific mention that BAFTA awards aren't really BAFTA awards if they're issued instead to students or first-time filmmakers.  Should there be a consensus in a relevant Wikiproject that this is in fact the case, that'd be a telling point, and I may well rethink my stance should the nom link to any such discussion.  Failing that, I don't see any fresh argument here.  Ravenswing  02:57, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions.  — Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 07:44, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  — Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 07:44, 25 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. In its current form the article meets gng, and is not subject to the problems that apparently afflicted it previously.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:19, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep: Passes WP:CREATIVE. Schmidt did great work. SL93 (talk) 20:07, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep: Nomination achieved subsequent expansion and additional sources. - Arjayay (talk) 18:50, 28 December 2011 (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.