Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nabil Abou-Harb


 * 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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 12:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Nabil Abou-Harb

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Does not establish notability of the individual. Sparse IMDB page, few verifiable resources and a Google search for this person returns few hits about this individual. Most are about other Nabil Abou-Harb's completely unrelated. While the short-film "Arab in America" has received some recognition, does Wikipedia spotlight every short-film director who has won an award? HeatWillRockYou (talk) 3:49, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

NOTE: — HeatWillRockYou (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Speedy Keep I went through the article's entire history change-by-change and noted a history of vandalism to the article by anonymous IPs and SPAs, as well as constructive edits by registered users... some adding and some subtracting. I found no evidence of there ever being a first AfD nomination, only a declined speedy. Yes, the BLP needs some cleanup to remove any remaining hyperbole or unsoucable claims, but subject meets the WP:GNG through ''Kansas City Star, Al Arabiya, USA Today, Providence Journal, Saphir News (french), Watan, Kuwait Times, all address either the filmmaker or his award-winning work. He has enough for notability. Per WP:DEL, issues with the article itself should be addressed through cleanup, not deletion, and certainly not by vandalism. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 19:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * IMDB does not confer any notability, so having a short list there is of no consequence. And actually, and every g-news hit was about THIS person and no other. Perhaps the nom did not include the name in quotations? I belive it will be proper to send courtesy notifications to the author and the article's major editors so they might address the nom's concerns. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 19:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 4 courtesy notifications have been made to registered users who made more than one edit to the article. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 20:01, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Notability established by coverage in reliable independent sources. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep I find the work of this director very notable indeed and it is regularly featured in many film festivals as well. I have personally watched "Arab in America" precisely during a film festival and it got applause and critical acclaim. I am informed it also won Grand Prize of the One Nation Many Voices Online Film Contest. werldwayd (talk) 20:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I have now added the winning of the Grand Proze in the festival I mentioned. This will add further substantiation of the request to keep article on Mr. Abou-Harb. Plus I have added as reference a "USA Today" piece on the short film win. http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2009-03-16-muslim-films_N.htm But I do find the enumeration of all the commercials a bit redundant. One can mention that he has done a lot of commercials... unless one or more particular commercials have had citations for excellence etc. I also have to admit I don't like the general tone of the article. There's so much excess info not needed, plus it really sounds like a promotional piece, not an entry in an encyclopedia, thus needs serious re-editing to say the least.werldwayd (talk) 21:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. The director's film may be notable (I expect not), but the individual has not received anything close to "significant" coverage in any reliable sources (the reliable sources that mention him do so only as the film's director and provider of the story), and the film's own recognition is not sufficient to imply director's notability. Bongo  matic  01:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete His film doesn't pass the criteria for WP:NF; there's no way he does. Most of the references are trivial: Reports that he graduated college, blogs, web pages of no notability, and in at least two cases dead links. PhGustaf (talk) 01:30, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * PhG, there's an entire write up in USA Today headlining his film as the grand prize winner . I know you prefer the creative writing in the NY Times, but surely USA Today counts as a reliable source? And that's just one of the many sources listed above. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * ChildofMidnight, the film may have received some praise, but so have many other short films. What qualifies this director as someone of notability or importance? Does Wikipedia normally let short-film directors who've won an award have their own page? HeatWillRockYou (talk) 04:12, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That other films have received write-ups, only indicates that they too might merit an article. What matters to WP:GNG in the write-ups being in reliable sources. And yes, if a person has won multiple awards and has the write-ups that meet the WP:GNG, whether for himself or critical praise of his work, Wikipedia "allows" that they might have an article, no matter the legth of their films, or the subject of their career... whether sports or author or politician or filmmaker. Its the WP:GNG that governs. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 04:30, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * GNG requires that the individual, not his works, receive significant coverage. The coverage is insignificant, even in USA Today (notice how I'm rising above the temptation to comment on that publication's reliability!)&mdash;the article is nine sentences long, of which precisely three mention the film, and only one mentions a fact about the filmmaker (that his name is difficult for some to pronounce). Bongo  matic  05:24, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep For the subject, the sources prove the notability.  Film-makers become notable through the making of films, just as authors become notable by writing books, politicians by winning elections, mass murderers by murdering. The only people who become notable by their personal lives are some web  and media celebrities--and we properly are somewhat reluctant to include them, as compared to those who become notable because of what they do.DGG (talk) 16:15, 22 July 2009 (UTC).
 * Comment The film is non-notable, and you can't get notable by making a non-notable film. There are plenty of sources, but they're mostly en passant mentions in articles about something or someone else.  The film runs thirteen minutes, two short of what we each have as birthright. PhGustaf (talk) 18:42, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Another comment. DGG, of course filmmakers become notable through their films. And the consensus for how they do this is summarized at WP:CREATIVE. The subject of this article fails each of the criteria set out in that guideline. Bongo  matic  22:18, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - the sources provided by MichaelQSchmidt and the subject passes the GNG. Failing CREATIVE is not an automatic fail, as clearly stated in WP:Notability (people).  It is rare, but sometimes movie makers can be notable for less than to default "2 notable movies". --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:15, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Have you actually read the sources? Which one do you think is "significant coverage" in a "reliable source"? Bongo  matic  23:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Relisting comment OOPS, I did not intend to relist this. It can be closed. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 28 July 2009 (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.