Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick Epino


 * 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) Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 22:08, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Patrick Epino

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Doesn't seem to meet WP:CREATIVE guidelines. A gnews search turns up nothing except for his Twitter feed. Mr. Vernon (talk) 07:06, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 07:11, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep "Nothing but his twitter feed"??? Somebody's gogle-foo is broken. Easy enough to find that PBS tells us Epino was co-founder of the National Film Society (needs an article itself) while sharing that with release of his first feature film he was tagged by The Independent as one of its "10 Filmmakers to Watch". and  Independent Exposure gives us more background on the man. IFP's Filmmaker Magazine discusses his film Mr. Sadman and gives us more about Epino himself.  Asians in Film sought him out for a in-depth interview. As did the Filipino-American Fil-Am Ako "Nothing but his twitter feed"??? G-news finds he or his works discussed in Asian Journal Eugene Weekly  Indie Wire Variety and Channel APA Is he as all time notable as Steven Spielberg or John Huston?  No.  Do he and his works have enough coverage to meet WP:ENT and WP:GNG? Yes.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 09:50, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for these links MICHAEL Q, they have been incorporated accordingly. I second the notion for this article to be KEPT. Much more than just his Twitter feed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.85.38.205 (talk) 10:23, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * How do we get this resolved and remove this box from the Patrick Epino wiki page? I think its pretty unanimous that this entry be KEPT. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.87.40.1 (talk) 20:53, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Even with the three opinions for keep, it being relisted below means this discussion will run another 7 days from June 28th. When the discussion is finally closed, the tag comes off.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 04:15, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 19:45, 28 July 2012 (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.