Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shaun Phillips (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   delete. In between the walls of text there were no convincing arguments for keep, and no in-depth, reliable sources are forthcoming — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:12, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Shaun Phillips (director)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Author declined PROD. Added a few references, but still fails WP:FILMMAKER. 37 sources are listed in the article, but only one of them, the Film Threat review of a short film, is a substantive RS. Others do not mention Phillips, are not RS (because primary or non-independent), or are not substantive (i.e., only mentioning a festival screening). One film won an award at a minor festival, but that does not make the filmmaker notable. Michitaro (talk) 13:14, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: The same user previously created a page on the company Phillips co-founded, but that was deleted after an AfD: Articles for deletion/Artistic Perspective Entertainment. Michitaro (talk) 13:29, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Phillips has played a major role in creating and/or co-creating several significant well-known works. There are more independent sources listed in his entry than are credited by Michitaro.  Sources in addition to Film Treat include NewFilmMakers.com, PressBox.cc.uk and Los Angeles radio station KSLX-FM 100.7FM.  I personally know Phillips as media producer for Coco through my own association with Coco, thus my motive to submit him for inclusion.  Phillips IS listed as director / producer on all 4 of Coco's international DVD releases.  I have submitted IMDB listings for all, but am not sure how to prove this fact to satisfy Wikipedia editors short of sending copies of the DVD's themselves as I can not find the credits to her DVD's listed on line.  DVD's are available at outlets worldwide and through her CocosWorld.com website (estimated 4 million hits per month, ranked 187,449 in world).  She stars in hit U.S. TV Show "Ice Loves Coco" on E!.  His critically acclaimed short film "The Beatles at their Best" continues to play the festival curcuit (playing Philadelphia Independent Film Festival June 22, 2012) before much publisised free internet viewing on June 24. It does have several independant sources.  It is worth noting that many of the DVD's, TV show promos & the 2 short films listed in the Phillips entry list either him or his company as the creator / copyright holder within the works themselves (usually in final credit copyright notice or in the case of NewFilmmakersNY and APE Presents, Phillips himself appears in the video presented as the director / producer.
 * It is true that I did submit Phillips' company Artistic Perspective Entertainment for consideration 5 years ago. At the time it was not considered noteworthy enough, but I was encouraged to re-submit it in the future if it produced more noteworthy works.  Five years later, and a few more noteworthy works later, rather than re-submit Artistic Perspective Entertainment, I have submitted Phillips himself instead. Bh1967 (talk) 22:21, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: Unfortunately, most of what Bh1967 mentions as reliable sources do not fit the Wikipedia standard. As I said, Film Threat is a RS. NewFilmMakers.com, however, is basically a self-promotion and distribution site for filmmakers, and thus is not independent. PressBox is just a site for uploading press releases, and the KSLX report just quotes from one of those press release sites. Other citations from RS like USA Today do not mention Phillips. I think we can grant that Phillips did direct what the article says he directed, but that is not the issue: the question is whether that makes him notable. Brief mentions that a documentary short has played here and there does not constitute "significant coverage" per WP:GNG. Even the "much publicized free internet viewing" was publicized only through self-produced press-releases, not independent coverage. Even if he has worked with famous people, notability is not necessarily inherited. Bh1967 has valiantly tried to add more and more sources, but the fact not one of them is a detailed article on Phillips himself is telling. Michitaro (talk) 23:06, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Considering that this is a developing story as another festival showing in addition to the pubicised free internet each scheduled to happen within the next week, and each with the potential for more press coverage, it would be prudent to at the very least not rush into a deletion of a topic that may very well meet the Wikipedia criteria in the next week if it hasn't done so already. Also, another user has deleted numerous YouTube & MySpace sources.  These sources were not presented as sources themselves, but rather only sited as evidence that works do and did exist over the past 5 years even if they can no longer be found at the websites that originally hosted them.  It is not YouTube or MySpace that is the source, but rather the content itself where Phillips and/or his company is mentioned during the content either in the credits or Phillips himself appears in interview.Bh1967 (talk) 01:47, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: I do not think the existance of the works is in question, but rather their notability per WP:NF, and his per WP:N. Films need to have coverage and analysis in reliable sources. Filmmakers require coverage in reliable sources. If properly reliable sources speak toward he and his works, such would go far toward showing the asserted notability.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 03:41, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

If a reliable source such as KSLX FM 100.7 Los Angeles quotes from a press release, does that not make KSLX a new source? If Wikipedia itself issued a press release about Wikipedia and The Wall Street Journal quoted from that press release, wouldn't the Wall Street Journal then be considered a source regarding Wikipedia?Bh1967 (talk) 17:25, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. I noticed that the KSLX reference was wrong so I fixed it. It is true that a lot of news articles are based in part on press releases. How "independent" they are--an important factor for judging a source for Wikipedia--depends on how much the article does beyond the press release and what the editorial policy of the publication is. Unfortunately, the KSLX piece is rather short and doesn't have much room to show its independence. I do not know KSLX's editorial policy--though most would not question that of the WSJ--but do note that Wikipedia is not a reliable source according to Wikipedia, since it is user generated. Michitaro (talk) 23:45, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: You are taking my comment out of context. I wasn't suggesting that Wikipedia is a source for articles found on Wikipedia.  I said Wikipedia WOULD be a source if the organization known as Wikipedia issued a press release about itself.  If Wikipedia itself issued a press release regarding changes in policy at Wikipedia, then in this specific example, Wikipedia would be the most accurate source one could find.Bh1967 (talk) 00:29, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I was not misunderstanding your comment. I was merely giving one example of how editorial policy is one factor in judging if something is a reliable source. WSJ clears that but Wikipedia does not. A separate issue, which you raise, is how you evaluate primary sources, like the Wikipedia press release you mention. Please read WP:USEPRIMARY. Wikipedia policy does not refuse all primary sources, but demands they be used very carefully. For instance, you could potentially use a press release from Wikipedia, but only in certain cases, and especially ones not related to evaluations of Wikipedia. Wikipedia can say in its release that it gets 6 billion visits a day, but you can't use that because that may be a biased or faked assertion of its importance--an independent source is always preferred in such cases. Michitaro (talk) 02:20, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree any claims Wikipedia makes about its own importance would need independent verification, but that is not what I originally said. However, you made a blanket statement when saying [q]Wikipedia is not a reliable source according to Wikipedia[/q], since it is user generated.  I pointed out that what you said is not true in all cases.  In certain instances it can be a relyable source - for example Wikipedia issuing a press release regarding it's own policies, then Wikipedia would be the best source.  What if Wikipedia issued a statement saying that the site would be unavailable on a certin date as Wikipedia did in fact do just a few months ago.  Who would know that better than Wikipedia itself?  In this example we would have a fact coming from Wikipedia itself.  This fact would not be a user generated claim.  This was the exact specific example I sited and the same example you responded to, so yes, you did take my statement out proper context.Bh1967 (talk) 02:55, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, I was only giving an example of editorial policy. See WP:NOTSOURCE. If the Wikipedia Foundation was issuing a press release about Wikipedia, that must be treated like other primary sources. Michitaro (talk) 04:12, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Bgwhite deleted a third of all the referrences on the Shaun Phillips (director) Wikipedia page including all of the YouTube and MySpace links. On Bgwhite's talk page he/she says he/she is justified in doing so because YouTube and MySpace videos can be faked. Can be yes, were no. Just because something can be faked doesn't mean it is. Also, it is not YouTube or MySpace that is the source, but rather the video itself that is the source. For instance, he/she deleted a YouTube link from a NBC-TV news report from 7 years ago. How can that video be faked? Bgwhite says a video must come from the news station's official website only or can't be used. That is not true. Many news reports such as the one I sourced no longer exist at the news stations official website because videos at news websites are often no longer available after a short period of time. In the case of the NBC-10 TV Philadelphia news report, the video no longer exists at their official website because it is from 2005. So the only way to view it is by finding an archived copy hosted by some other website, in this case I found a copy hosted at YouTube. In addition, how could someone fake a news report that is complete with NBC news studio hosts shown introducing the story and the tossing it to an NBC field reporter on location in Philadelphia in 2005? How could that be faked? Bgwhite also deleted The 2012 Philadelphia Independent Film Festival's official film listing page that mentions Phillips by name, describes his film and lists its festival showing date as June 22, 2012 at 10:30pm. This webpage is accessed through the festivals official website. How could this be faked?Bh1967 (talk) 00:18, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Just to add one thing here. Whether Bgwhite mentioned this or not I don't know, but one other reason YouTube clips like the ones you mention are not kosher is because they are likely copyright violations. Wikipedia has a strict copyright policy and that can include links to copyright violations (see for instance WP:ELNEVER). Unless it is the NBC official YouTube channel, I doubt you can cite it. Also, as for the film festival listing, I would remind you that mere mentions of the film or announcements of showings are trivial and do not constitute detailed independent coverage. A film could have lots of showings at this or that festival, but given the large number of minor festivals, that does not in itself constitute notability. Michitaro (talk) 02:32, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * We are not talking about a single screening at a single festival. You yourself have stated it had other festival screenings including winning The New England Underground Film Festival which directly led to the article in Film Threat that you said was acceptable as an independent source.  You can't just delete festival sources because you single them out one by one as not notible.  You don't have the right to set that standard.  If so, please clarify how big a festival would have to be for it to past your self imposed criteria?  If it played Cannes, would that be big enough for you?  How about Sundance or Toronto?  Are they big enough?  What is your standard for festival notability?  Numerous playings at minor festivals can be notable and can lead to more press which in the case of Phillips film "The Beatles at their Best", is exactly what happened.  The source listing it's publicised showing in the upcoming Philadelphia Independant Film Festival should not have been deleted.  It is another independent source confirming Phillips as a filmmaker making films that are making the rounds in the festival circuit as we speak.  You don't have the right to decide what festivals are notible and what festivals are not.Bh1967 (talk) 03:10, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

How about if I wanted to proof former U.S. President Kennedy was shot in the head while riding in a convertable in Dallas in 1963? I doubt the original news organizations that aired the reports at the time still have that video available at their official websites. In fact, many of the news organizations that reported this fact no longer exist. A YouTube link or some other link to a website showing archival footage of the original news report would be a valid source because it is not the website that is the source, but rather the original video itself that is the source irregardless of whatever website is hosting it. The NBC-TV 10 Philadelphia 2005 news report is no longer at the stations official website, but an archived copy of that report was found at YouTube and used as a referrence. Same thing as the Kennedy example I just sited.Bh1967 (talk) 02:55, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. I suggest you calm down a bit. As I said on my talk page, I am willing to withdraw this AfD if you find the necessary sources. And I have written a lot explaining Wikipedia policy to you. First, it is the business of Wikipedia editors to determine whether a festival is notable or not. We do it all the time when someone tries to create a page on that festival. And even if it is considered notable enough to have a Wikipedia page, that does not mean that every single film shown there or given some award deserves to have a Wikipedia page. WP:NF only specifies major awards in the field. Please remember that the question of whether Phillips directed some films is not the issue here: it is the question of whether he is notable. Just showing at some lesser known film festivals is not enough (there are plenty of festivals that will play a film if you pay them to). If some national critic picks up the film at a festival and writes about it or Phillips that's great--you can cite that--but then it is the detailed article, not the festival page, that is more important. Finally, your Kennedy example does not work. There are plenty of media that can be cited. If you can't find the video, use another media. Wikipedia does not depend on net sources, so you can cite any reliable source in print if you can find it in the library. But the copyright rules are strict. If the video you want to link to is not cleared for copyright, then it is just bad luck. You can't use it--no exceptions. But if you believe the TV news story is a substantive reliable source on Phillips, you can cite it without linking to YouTube. See WP:CITEVIDEO. Michitaro (talk) 04:12, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Whether the the NBC-TV video that is on YouTube is there in violation of NBC's copyright is certainatly a valid point, however that one specific video wasn't the original topic of conversation. The original point I made was that user MichaelQSchmidt deleted EVERY MySpace and YouTube link by claiming he was justified in doing so because it is not possible for a YouTube or MySpace link to be a valid source.  I believe that it is possible in certain circumstances for a YouTube or MySpace link to be a valid source.  I attemped to use an example to illistrate that fact.  In certain cercumstances it is possible because the video itself would be the source, not MySpace or YouTube.  It is also worth noting that in the specific example of the NBC-TV 10 video, MichaelQSchmidt did not delete it because of a copyright issue.  His reason given for that and the many other source links he deleted was simply because the sources cited were hosted at YouTube or MySpace.  I believe that deleting MySpace or YouTube links should be done on a case by case basis.  We have strayed a bit, but that was my original point.Bh1967 (talk) 12:49, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the Wikipedia policies I have noted do allow for exceptions, but you must be able to argue the reasons behind taking advantage of those exceptions using Wikipedia standards. I believe it was Bgwhite, not MichaelQSchmidt who made those edits. I cannot speak for other editors, so if you want to discuss this more with him/her, please continue the discussion on the user talk page using established policies to support you, and perhaps linking to this AfD. This kind of discussion should ideally take place on the talk pages of the article or the user, not on the AfD. Michitaro (talk) 02:29, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You are correct, it was Bgwhite. I did question him/her on June 18th on his/her talk page regarding his/her decision to simply delete all MySpace & YouTube links for no other reason than they were YouTube & MySpace links.  Bgwhite has yet to respond.Bh1967 (talk) 12:39, 20 June 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, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 06:57, 1 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment That article is a mess, some cites simply do not support the claims made, or worse, make no mention of the claim, Shaun, APE or Artistic Perspective Entertainment. And far, far too much trivia - it needs severe pruning, which might help the poor reader discern what's important about the subject. But the filmthreat cite works for me as a reliable source (is it enough?). And Google books search does find the name in lists for film director and production companies (example ) but it's hard to determine whether it's the same person. -84user (talk) 15:41, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment frankly I am finding it hard to resist re-removing those unreliable "citations" that Bgwhite removed here - they are prime examples of poor citations - each one needs a precise quote with sufficient context to help verify the claim it is intended to support. Myspace and imdb are unreliable. The YouTube channel playserious appears to be a non-independent primary source (which is sometimes acceptable, but independent sources are preferred) . -84user (talk) 16:10, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Vanispamcruftisement with sourcing designed to misleed. Tries hard to establish notability by association with name dropping and puffing others achievements. Major bombardment (especially in earlier versions) to disguise a lack of notability. Sourcing is questionable at best. Sources that don't verify claims, verifying things that Phillips had nothing to do with, verifying only a minor part of claims (and parts unrelated to Phillips), primary sources, press releases. Other than one review of his documentary there is nothing here. Clear and unambiguos promotion. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:06, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment It is not "disguised to mislead" or "disguise a lack of notability" as user Duffbeerforme has stated unless the claims that have been made are in fact untrue. Since the claims are true, I am simply providing the best posible sources that I can find online to verify the facts this entry contains.  There are no "disguises"Bh1967 (talk) 22:11, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Added new source that appeared online for first time last week.  I own all 4 of the Coco DVD's mentioned.  Phillips and his company is listed on packaging and in the videos themselves (in final credits) as editor and producer.  How do I properly list these as sources when I can't find packaging or videos themselves online?Bh1967 (talk) 22:02, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment I noticed that the links you provided for the "new" source were broken, so I tried to fix them, only to find that Examiner.com is on the Wikipedia spam blacklist (WP:BLACKLIST). I thus had to remove them. If you want to have this one article approved, you can apply to the whitelist: WT:WHITELIST. Michitaro (talk) 23:44, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. I largely agree with the analysis of sources by User:Duffbeerforme above. This working artist has done nothing to merit inclusion in an encyclopedia, based on sources provided and a reasonable search myself. Nothing directly detailing the person. As a BLP, we need stronger sources than those currently linked. Likely promotion. BusterD (talk) 14:08, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. Seems like this is an up and coming filmmaker just starting to get noteriety. There are are some credible sources listed and more seem to be appearing as we go.  User:BH1967 added another new source that appeared last week.  I just added a review from Indyred.com that appeared this week.  The reviewer mentions Phillips and his film by name giving a very positive review of his work as a film maker and as a narrator (5 out of 5 stars).  If the other poorly sourced works listed in his bio are true, and I suspect they are, then Phillips clearly is notable.Playserious (talk) 15:03, 9 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.