Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Gavino


 * 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. Jaranda wat's sup 19:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Michael Gavino

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Extremely minimal notability. Involved with films with minimal distribution, one won an award of minimum profile. No sources that I could find have text about him, except ones that are apparently self-posted. (Also, article is borderline copyvio). The "Golden Bone" award turns out to be an award within a particular small film festival, given out in many categories: it really doesn't carry much weight. Mango juice talk 20:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - probably a violation of WP:COI. -- Hot Dog Wolf  --  Bark!  20:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Fails WP:BIO, and from the way it is written, it appear as if it fails WP:COI. -- Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor  ( ταlκ )  20:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, seams notable to me.Callelinea 04:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 08:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Not notable -- omtay 38  19:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. There may be at least a small claim to notability. He did go to a good film school and he does have a body of work. I'm not necessarily suggesting that it rises to the level of keep but someone .may want to look at the work more closely. .Commercial success may not be the measurement tool in this instance. --Stormbay 03:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * What I did was to look and see if I could find any WP:RS reliable sources that discuss him and I couldn't. There were a couple of self-posted profiles out there, including one on IMDB, but nothing clearly independent and reliable.  Mango juice talk 11:57, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that the sources are not independent but there are many articles that use only IMDB as a source and they are not challenged. Self posted (or produced by a sympathetic party), undoubtedly; fabricated, not likely. It is not as easy to attain a level of recognition that clearly says notability if the direction is not a commercial one but it may still be there. --Stormbay 23:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, but based on my search, there are no sources at all that we can use, so we can't have an article. But maybe there's one you can find that I couldn't?  Mango juice talk 05:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * These same arguments were raised in February and successfully refuted. We must not confuse popularity and money with artistic achievement. The achievement makes the person worthy of inclusion. It may seem foreign to some, but there are some filmmakers out there who are not interested in distribution or web buzz. They create art for art’s sake. They create experimental films, shorts, and multi-media projects that are created for the art of filmmaking or to make some point not to earn money. The highest achievement in art for art’s sake filmmaking is recognition from their peers such as winning a film festival award. The person who accomplishes this is just a worthy for mention as the horror or teen sex comedy filmmaker who achieves distribution, web buzz, and earns significant financial return. Those arguing for exclusion assert that because awards are given out in different categories that this somehow diminishes the accomplishment. This argument ignores the fact that the vast majority of artistic awards, commercial or non-commercial, are given out in different categories. For example, you would not argue that someone who won best supporting actress is not deserving of inclusion because awards were given out in many categories. The achievement is being recognized as the best in that category. Those arguing for exclusion also bring up the canard of copyright infringement and/or plagiarism. This argument is without merit. The article is scrupulously referenced. Every statement is credited to the source. It conforms to the highest level of scholarship. Once again, I point out that the arguments for exclusion were made before and denied. I hope Wikipedia takes this into consideration, and we don’t have to constantly fight this battle between art for art’s sake filmmaking and the monied interest. Temporaryriches 22:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC) — Temporaryriches (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Refactored. Note: in February, a prod tag was removed by the author; this vague defense was brought up but there wasn't a debate at the time.  Mango juice talk 05:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I must disagree that the argument is vague. It is quite direct and to the point. The highest honor in the art for art's sake is peer recognition (awards). People who achieve a high honor in their field deserve recognition. I believed the award is proved by the webpage of the film festival itself. Whether or not the person has a big web presence or has done commercial projects does not diminish the achievement. The achievment in and of itself deserve recognition. Temporaryriches 05:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe I should have said philosophical. Yes, good for him!  I'm sure he deserves the award and I don't doubt that he won it (nor that the web page of the festival is good enough proof).  However, my interpretation is that this is a minor film festival, and an award there is not enough to confer notability and this seems to be confirmed by the fact that no one seems to have written anything about him in reliable sources.  Put another way, I don't intend to say anything negative about him as an artist, just that a Wikipedia article is not an appropriate way to honor him.  Mango juice talk 11:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep. I have watched this discussion with interest (and commented above) and done some research. The IMDB entry is often the only source cited in many articles. Most of the articles concerning music and film use nothing but promotional and client friendly sources, and very few in that category. In this case, we can accept that a body of work, spanning a period of time, exists. There appears to be sufficient material to accredit his body of work and allow that recognition in the form of a Wikipedia article. --Stormbay 20:34, 16 July 2007 (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.