Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Patterson (director)


 * 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. After improvements.  Sandstein  09:49, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Scott Patterson (director)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable. No sources found, has produced one independent film (also nominated for AfD) which also appears to be non-notable. Yunshui (talk) 09:03, 29 July 2011 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because the film appears to have no sources demonstrating notability per WP:NF:


 * Keep both A film screened in one of the main competitions at Cannes is notable, and this director is also notable (ref added). I'll add some more refs later too.  Lugnuts  (talk) 09:27, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * CommentSlamCam Films is the director's own website, and thus fails WP:USERG; it's not acceptable as a demonstration of notability. I don't doubt that Lessons... was screened at Cannes, but it didn't even merit a Mention Spéciale in the Un Certain Regard category, far less winning it; it was mere shown in that category. Had it been put up for a Palme d'Or then fair enough, but Un Certain Regard is specifically for films which are seeking recognition - and therefore have not yet attained it. Yunshui (talk) 09:37, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * More refs added. Disagree with your belief that non-award winning films in Un Certain Regard are not-notable. Are all of these films not notable too? UCR is as notable as the main competition at Cannes. It would be the equivalent of saying that the Short Documentary Film category at the Oscars isn't notable, compared to the Best Film category.  Lugnuts  (talk) 11:37, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  —Grahame (talk) 02:45, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:56, 5 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete both - Notability for film is covered in Notability (films).  The film Lessons in the Language of Love doesn't seem to meet any of the criteria.  A Keep comment above says "A film screened in one of the main competitions at Cannes" is notable, but WP:NFILM says otherwise.    The director, Scott Patterson (director), has very few independent reliable sources that discuss him: just a couple, all in relation to the film  Lessons in the Language of Love.   If these are kept, they should be merged.  But, I dont see sufficient discussion in independent sources to demonstrate notability. --Noleander (talk) 06:52, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Commnent - Have done a little research and it would appear that he is responsible for a number of films and TV series. I am sure that there will be sufficient references in relation to some of these other films. Dan arndt (talk) 08:12, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Nice work Dan. His filmography shows evidence of notability, and at worst, the short film should be merged into his article.  Lugnuts  (talk) 10:19, 5 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep there appears to be sufficient references to clearly establish notability. Dan arndt (talk) 05:09, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep the director has made more than "one" film, and has been shown to meet WP:CREATIVE through his works. Okay with a Merge and Redirect of Lessons in the Language of Love into the director's article.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 05:33, 12 August 2011 (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.