Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princeton Holt


 * 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   redirect to Cookies & Cream (film). Redirect is the consensus I'm interpreting. Userfication can be considered when/if the author requests me (or any other admin)   Wifione    .......  Leave a message  18:12, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Princeton Holt

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. I find a lot of notation for his films but no secondary support for the individual. Awards listed appear to be for his film, not for the individual. Appears to fail WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE.  ttonyb (talk) 05:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect Keep  to Cookies & Cream and Userfy the BLP to its author. If an individual's work receives recognition and awards, that notability IS the individual's under WP:CREATIVE. And no, notability through recognition of their works is specifically not a violation of notinherited.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 02:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Modified my comment above. Far less bitey to a new contributor... Userfy this BLP back author User:Justaperson in ny for continued work, and set a redirect to Cookies & Cream, a work of this writer/director that has arguable notability.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 19:30, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, BLP with no reliable sources from which to write a bio. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 02:34, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you addressing the article's current state? Or are you saying that you could find no sources that speak toward his works receiving critical response or winning awards??  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 03:58, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment – There is a difference between his works gathering critical support and his winning awards. His film winning awards may support an article for the film, but does not support his notability.  ttonyb  (talk) 05:35, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Re-read WP:CREATIVE and note the phrase "... has created, or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work... ...that has been the subject of... ...of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Yes, articles about his work would also support an article about the work, but until it is re-written, per CREATIVE, that notability is also his.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 06:17, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * What reliable sources can you provide from which you can write a biography? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 06:03, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I haven't even addressed this. What notability do his works have?  Everard Proudfoot (talk) 06:27, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The nominator makes some mention in his opening comments of the various projects having coverage and awards, but feels the possible notability of the films through their coverage and awards could not possible met the criteria of CREATIVE.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 06:35, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * So in other words, you can't come up with any notability for his works? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 06:36, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * So in other words, you cannot or will not look yourself for anything that might prove your opinion to be wrong? Though I am not the nominator, I am willing to accept that his initial searches did just that... and I do not doubt his having looked before writing his statements.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 06:41, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This is a BLP. It's not my responsibility to do your job for you.  If you think the article should be kept, then it's your responsibility to do the citing.  Everard Proudfoot (talk) 06:42, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec) I'm an unpaid volunteer Proudfoot.... NONE of this is my "job", no more than it is yours. And while it's always interesting when newer editors like yourself decide that the actual gruntwork toward improving articles is someone else's "job", a self-accepted responsibility for sourcing articles is a personal choice, and not yours to dictate.  And yes...this is a poorly written BLP, yes... but it is sourced and it does make assertions toward notability, no matter how many tags gets hung on it.. At least its newbie author made some attempts toward that.  And while yes, it will definitely benefit from improvement, AFD is not meant to be used as a bludgeon to force cleanup, nor is it a place for you to demand that I or anyone else jump to it because you command it. I invite you to re-read WP:IMPERFECT, WP:WIP, and WP:DEADLINE.... and try to gain a real understanding of what they mean.   Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 07:31, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Let's all take a deep breath...I feel better. A couple of things; I do not see that any of the works created by Holt as being established as "significant or well-known work", either in the article or in the review of Google articles I performed prior to the AfD nomination.  Most of the support in the article is just a site listing of a movie.  There are a couple of reviews, but nothing that supports this is a significant work.  The burden of providing support falls to the originator of the article.  Currently, the substance of the article does not support inclusion in Wikipedia. Let's all remember we are a community of volunteers and while we may have disagreements, we should not take those disagreements personally.  By best you you both.   ttonyb  (talk) 07:02, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ttonyb1.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 07:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete I agree strongly with  Schmidt,  that, as he notes, if an individual's work receives recognition and awards, that notability IS the individual's under WP:CREATIVE and that notability through recognition of their works is specifically not a violation of notinherited."  But at least a cursory G-search doesn't find those honors and awards here.  Just a couple of honorable mentions Vrivers (talk) 11:21, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * So... if enough can be brought forward to show that his works themselves are notable, they having a WP article or not, then under CREATIVE, that notability is his. I do note that the individual has been interviewed, and even if not contributory to notability, much of the background portions of the BLP is supportable.  And toward CREATIVE, his Cookies & Cream appears to meet notability criteria, and his other works are approaching.  In appreciation of courteous responses, I have above modified my original "keep" to a "redirect to Cookies and Cream" and "userfication of he BLP to its author" for continued work.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 19:30, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * What sources show that this film is notable? Nothing but listings that the film exists and it won awards at non-notable film festivals.  Everard Proudfoot (talk) 20:21, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Proudfoot, we're discussing a BLP and how to best serve the project, and not an article about a film, poorly writen as it is, that has itself been the subject of critical commentary. While yes, the film article itself needs improvement, it's do-able and is itself not the topic under discussion.  In compromise, I proposed userfication and a suitable redirection...but I now begin to wonder if you yourself have an unfortunate COI due in your apparent animus toward compromise and your adamance to not even consider a suitable userfication to its good faith author or a redirect to a suitable target... both options which remove this article from mainspace and create a win-win for the project.  I will not be drawn into unhelpful banter with you, and will trust a closer to consider guideline and policy supported alternatives to your outright deletion.   Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:47, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * We are discussing a BLP. You have yet to provide any information that provides the person's notability.  You suggest redirecting to the film.  You have yet to provide any information that provides the film's notability.  And yet I, who never heard of this person or the film, somehow have some mysterious COI?  Pot, meet kettle.  It never ceases to amaze me how, when somebody disagrees with another person, all of a sudden, claims of COI show up with no justification nor evidence.  Everard Proudfoot (talk) 05:10, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Proudfoot, I agree the BLP might be removed from mainspace. So why be a sore winner?  I suggested a guideline and policy encouraged way that the article on the filmmaker might still serve the encyclopdia... and now you have a new beef... about something that is not a BLP and something that is not the article being discussed here for deletion.  And as the film article will be undergoing improvements that might make it a suitable redirect recipient, perhaps you might wish to visit and read and re-read WP:ATD, WP:IMPERFECT, and WP:WIP... as improving content, even if it takes a little time, or does not happen because you DEMAND others improve what you can not or will not, is always beneficial to the project.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 08:49, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment – Given the work that has been performed on the article, userfication or incubation is a viable alternative to full deletion.  On a side note, we should also acknowledge the work MichaelQSchmidt has performed on the article and his continued contribution to improve Wikipedia by providing his editing skills to needy articles.  MichaelQSchmidt my hat is off to you.   ttonyb  (talk) 05:54, 21 September 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.