Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael W. Dean


 * 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. Tone 12:14, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Michael W. Dean
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Article appears to be little more than vanispamruft. Full of inline external links (sneaky spam?). Provided refs (all inline) are not satisfactory. For example, the one the links to a Vh1 clip only mentions Dean as the author in about 10 seconds of a 20 or so second short advert-like clip about a book he wrote. The variety magazine reference is useless, since it's just a listing of a film with his name as director. I do not see any actual references that are ABOUT this person, other than trivial passing mentions. He's directed a couple of movies but notability is not inherited and neither of them appears to have won any awards or been particularly special. Seems to fail WP:BIO. Kindzmarauli (talk) 05:28, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

This article has been nominated for deletion two or three times, well before user Kindzmarauli came onto Wikipedia, and it has been decided to let it stay each time. Has already been well defended, I'm not going to retype all of that. If a new user on Wikipedia wants to fight to delete it, I've got better things to do than fight with the youngins. See article "the failure of wikipedia" http://ascii.textfiles.com/archives/808 by Wikipedia OG Jason Scott about having to spend more time as a content DEFENDER than a content CREATOR. ElizaBarrington (talk) 17:57, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I find nothing to substantiate your claim that this article "has been nominated for deletion two or three times...it has been decided to let it stay each time" I only found this VfD discussion from 2005 in which the consensus was to delete. Could you please point those who have not been involved in these previous discussions to where they might be found? Thanks. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 19:57, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Here's one of 'em: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Michael_W._Dean ElizaBarrington (talk) 20:34, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I've gone over that talk page and most of what I see is you rebutting the various problem/maintenance templates that had been placed on the article. Placing problem/maintenance templates is quite different from nomination for deletion. Nominating an article for deletion usually entails placing a CSD, PROD, or AfD tag on the article, and the article being deleted (or kept) in accordance with the appropriate policy.
 * Upon further digging through the history, I found that an IP prodded the page – likely in bad faith – in December 2009 and you removed the prod about 15 minutes later . While your removal of the prod was absolutely within policy, it is a major stretch to say that that was a decision to "let it stay". &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 21:00, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I do seem to remember at least one other nomination for deletion/decision to stay, I may have deleted the chatter about it. It's probably somewhere in history, either of the article page/talk page/ or elsewhere, I just don't have time to sift through it. It seems Wikipedia has some new editors who tend to be heavy handed with deletion, judging from their history (not just the folks who have called for this page's deletion, but just a general assessment from my years on Wikipedia vs. something I've noticed lately.)

I have a lot better things to do than to re-re-re-defend the same articles over and over. It's work. If no one else cares to nominate this article to stay, and provide additional resources, and someone deletes it, than so be it. I'm more into being a content creator than a content re-re-re-defender.

Thanks! ElizaBarrington (talk) 21:37, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:40, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:41, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:41, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:BIO and WP:BAND. Burpelson AFB (talk) 02:15, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Per Kindzmarauli and Burpelson AFB. In addition, fails WP:CREATIVE (author and filmmaker). Akerans (talk) 04:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Eliza, I am sorry your artice has been sent to AfD, but that is no reason to demean me and assume bad faith or that I don't know how to satisfy WP:N. This article does not. Kindzmarauli (talk) 04:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - could not find significant coverage of the person by independent reliable sources to establish notability per the guidelines (general, music, creative or otherwise) .--137.122.49.102 (talk) 15:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Is it snowing where you are from? Whose Your Guy (talk) 20:22, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per nomination rationale. Salting might not be a bad idea either. 70.241.19.79 (talk) 09:00, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete and check the articles about this dude's "work" as well. Most of this seems like utter self promotion, I just read through the amazon entries for his "films" and I'm pretty convinced at least half of the reviews are fake. And using the google test as a relevance argument for a someone who is known to promote himself over the internet is just... let's say pointless. If this guy stays, I can tell two thirds of the students at my roommate's film and arts school that they deserve a WP article now... -- Imladros (talk) 02:55, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment -- The subject's self-promotion should be a separate issue from whether or not he is notable. His 2002 documentary DIY or Die got a NYT review and his O'Reilly bio lists a lot of interesting work, but it is not clear than any one of them or all of them together add up to notability. Maybe keep the article about DIY or Die and merge the bio into it. Questionic (talk) 15:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It's actually an All Movie Guide review duffbeerforme (talk) 05:35, 21 August 2010 (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.