Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nathan S. Hill


 * 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. No evidence of notability presented. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 00:54, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Nathan S. Hill

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

non-notable per WP:CREATIVE, no independent refs given, non found, possible COI/PR creator Deunanknute (talk) 23:32, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment-I was unsure of this but he did look notable at the time but now I'm unsure what to say. Wgolf (talk) 23:34, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment-He is more notable than the Australian director of same name — Preceding unsigned comment added by PRose88 (talk • contribs) 23:52, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * comment notability is not determined by other articles, please see WP:WHATABOUTX. Also, see WP:RS and WP:IS for information on reliable and independent sources, respectively. Deunanknute (talk) 00:06, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I am a film historian and feel this Nathan Hill has made a couple notable films. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PRose88 (talk • contribs) 00:09, February 10, 2015‎
 * Comment Please explain why a filmmaker of home videos is listed as "Nathan Hill" the filmmaker not the real Nathan Hill? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PRose88 (talk • contribs) 00:12, February 10, 2015‎
 * Comment Is Rotten Tomatoes an Independent source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PRose88 (talk • contribs) 00:14, February 10, 2015‎
 * Comment PRose88 is the author of the article, and has made no edits other than those concerning the director and his film. Meters (talk) 22:51, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

comment - rotten tomatoes does not establish notability, neither does imdb. I'm not sure what you mean by the "home videoes...not the real" comment, but I think your answer might be in WP:WHATABOUTX. If not, please clarify. Also, please sign comments with 4 "~"'s Deunanknute (talk) 00:22, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I should probably clarify this a little. What Deunanknute means is that profiles on Rotten Tomatoes or IMDb cannot show notability since all it shows is that the person exists as a director, actor, or in some position. Now if there were reviews for Hill's work on Rotten Tomatoes by verified critics (the ones that make up the Tomatometer) then those could show notability for him, but it'd have to be for works where he served in an extremely major position like a lead actor or director. From what I can see on RT, none of Hill's work has gained any critical reviews. Now as far as IMDb goes, that's considered to be a routine database listing and at most it can be used to back up small, trivial details but even then that's sometimes questionable because of how easy it is for people to create profiles and alter them with little to no oversight. Notability can only be established through coverage in independent and reliable sources per WP:RS. Sites like Search my Trash are not considered to be reliable and Gadget Advisor could be, but I can't seem to verify what type of editorial oversight it has (if any) so I can't see where that'd be usable either. Something like a review of one of his films on Film Threat or an article through Variety about him would be the type of thing that you'd need to show notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   07:33, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sing! 18:48, 16 February 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Biblio  worm  16:46, 23 February 2015 (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.