Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rock Savage (film producer) (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Black Kite (talk) 10:47, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Rock Savage (film producer)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Do not see a claim or assertion of notability backed with reliable sources to meet notability guidelines for filmmakers or general notability guidelines CutOffTies (talk) 17:12, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep it. I disagree with CutOffTies for all of the same reasons I mentioned in the 1st nomination. To those, I will add two more arguments: Mondo Pagan and The Occult World of Rock Savage. Although somewhat crude in production quality, these films provide significant insights into the Neopagan culture. If Wikipedia had a category for Wiccan nonfiction films, this pair of films would be noteworthy members of that category. At present, nobody's written a Wikipedia article about either film, but maybe somebody will in the near future. Maybe I will do so. Folklore1 (talk) 21:39, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That they provide significant insights into the neo-pagan culture sounds like OR unless it can be demonstrated with reliable sourcing, You need to demonstrate what criterion of WP:FILMMAKER or WP:GNG is fulfilled. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:51, 30 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 22:20, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - Notability is established through significant coverage in independent reliable sources. This is simply not the case here.   Alternatively, it can be established by satisfying any if the criteria listed for WP:FILMMAKER.  I don't see where any of those are satisfied either.  The above argument seems to imply that point 3 is satisfied but I do not see any evidence to support such an assertion. -- Whpq (talk) 15:01, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I would consider (1) John Edgar Browning and Caroline Joan (Kay) Picart (2011), Dracula in Visual Media and (2) Mark Opsasnick (September 10, 2003), Miscellaneous and Unknown: Cultural Souvenirs from Prince George's County, Maryland to be independent, reliable sources. Both considered Rock Savage notable enough to mention. Folklore1 (talk) 00:54, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Dracula in Visual Media provides no significant coverage about Rock Savage and the coverage of the film is simply a capsule plot summary, and such does not contribute towards establishing notability. Google Books has a preview available.  Miscellaneous and Unknown: Cultural Souvenirs from Prince George's County, Maryland is self-published through xlibris so there is not the editorial oversight that would qualify it as a reliable source. -- Whpq (talk) 03:46, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 28 May 2012 (UTC)



Having read a lot of his work, I consider Mark Opsasnick to be a reliable source on Maryland culture and folklore, even for books he self-published. My opinion remains: keep it. Folklore1 (talk) 12:20, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * A reason based on your personal experiences (you are saying he is reliable based on what you know and his agreement with that) is inherently original research. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:51, 30 May 2012 (UTC)


 * DELTE' Sadly, I agree.    Yes, there are references, however  none can be considered reliable, many are self-published or niche.    This  article fails notablility.

KoshVorlon Angeli I demoni  krushil nado mnoj   12:40, 30 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Mark Opsasnick is a well-known full-time professional journalist in Maryland. Is it necessary for me to provide references about Opsasnick to establish him as a credible source? This discussion could wander quite far from the subject, Rock Savage. Folklore1 (talk) 20:18, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I suggest you take this issue to Reliable sources/Noticeboard if you want to establish that book as a reliable source. However, notability requires that the significant coverage be from multiple reliable sources, and even if that book is agreed to be reliable source, that is still insufficient. -- Whpq (talk) 21:17, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, this project's policy on self-published sources is informative: WP:SELFPUBLISH. --CutOffTies (talk) 21:22, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * DELETE This guy just isn't notable himself and hasn't made any movies of significant notability either. --Joshuaism (talk) 18:50, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete as failing GNG and FILMMAKER. Nothing linked passes any test for IRS. As pointed out above, the book is self published, so even if the author were an established expert, it could never (bold per policy) be used on a BLP. My reading of the discussions above is that only the page creator holds for a keep outcome in either deletion discussion. I AGF that User:Folklore1 is making a case based upon their understanding of the subject's notability (and that editor has pretty good cred in the Baltimore, Maryland popular culture subject area). I'd have no objection to userfying the page until better sources could be found. BusterD (talk) 23:08, 7 June 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.