Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spencer Hawken


 * 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. Will userfy upon request Mark Arsten (talk) 18:00, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Spencer Hawken

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails notability. Passing mentions in the press and IMDB sources do no more than verify that the gentleman exists. Previously deleted via expired PROD and CSD. The current article appears very similar to the deleted articles. Fiddle  Faddle  10:36, 2 September 2013 (UTC)


 * These are more than passing mentions, please study the articles in question  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.231.99.187 (talk) 19:31, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 2 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Note participants in this discussion should look, please, at the edit history of Spencer Hawken, specifically at the multiple removal attempts of the AfD notice. Fiddle   Faddle  19:42, 2 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Users should not the consistent attempts by Timtrentl even after other editing users have agreed the significance of the article. In fact three other editing parties worked on this title after Timtrentl moved for speedy deletion. So Timtrentl moved for speedy deletion, other editors disagreed with the move, edited the article to make it wiki friendly, then Timtrentl decided to again move the article for deletion. It is clear there is an agenda based on dislike of the subject matter by Timtrentl


 * A posting for this named person was in place from 2005 and deleted in June. The original text has now been replaced with one minor edit.


 * Timtrentl claims there to be only passing references, these are not simply passing references, they include mass press articles, and photographs proving the existence of said individual and significance for having a Wikipedia page. The named individual is engaged in activity that will ave significant historical value, increasing the first genuine zero budget feature film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.231.99.187 (talk) 19:49, 2 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment This discussion is being held to determine by consensus whether the article is valid here, now, today. If Hawken passes WP:GNG then he passes and the article should remain. If he does not then it should not. That Hawken exists is not the issue. It is whether he is notable that is the issue. Rhetoric is useless in this discussion. By contrast facts, when placed in the article and cited in reliable sources, are highly likely to swing the argument in favour of it being kept. Fiddle   Faddle  20:00, 2 September 2013 (UTC)


 * My point, is that the consensus already disagreed with your view, you then submitted it again for deletion. When someone disagrees with your view its war, what about your decision to disagree with others and put the article for deletion again? You seem to be the only person engaged in this battle, predecessors on both occasions disagreed with your view, but you single handedly continue with your crusade. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.231.99.187 (talk) 20:38, 2 September 2013 (UTC)


 * And now you have your chance to ensure that the article has sufficient notability asserted to avoid deletion. Go to it with a will. Fiddle   Faddle  21:25, 2 September 2013 (UTC)


 * But we already had that, you chose to delete it again! 151.231.99.187 (talk) 05:49, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Please try very hard to understand that the article, as it stands now, does not pass WP:GNG (0.9 probability), but that you can make it pass if you do some work on it to ensure that it does. I have proposed it here for a discussion about deletion. Others will judge whether it gets deleted or not. Work is what saves articles, not continual posting of the same thing in discussions. Fiddle   Faddle  08:27, 3 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Incubation. Has potential, but the article is not there yet.  Once notability has been conclusively established, it can be recreated.  There are too many trivial mentions and unreliable sources (such as the IMDb, which I removed).  Rather than describing a notable person, it makes the article seem like it's desperately seeking to establish notability using whatever is available from Google.  In a situation where notability is hotly contested and only debatable, it seems best to userfy or incubate. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:44, 3 September 2013 (UTC)


 * One of the links you removed was entirely valid, as there is photographic evidence that ties in with other articles on this page, so have resubmitted it.151.231.99.187 (talk) 05:09, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * IMDB is not viewed as a reliable source, thus the item you consider to be evidence is considered by Wikipedia to be simply 'of interest'. Evidence may only be found in reliable sources. There is no inherent problem with linking to IMDB but the link is useless to verify facts. Fiddle   Faddle  09:22, 4 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete -- This chap has appeared as an extra in two or three films, and claims to ahve directed a film on which we have no article. I cannot see that he has acheived anything noteworthy.  Peterkingiron (talk) 12:47, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Incubate The film Death Walks wb released in 2014. Presumably it will receive reviews. When it does, that will qualify this article as notable on WP:AUTHOR #3, multiple reviews. Until then WP:TOOSOON. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 04:20, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - Some coverage in local papers is insufficient to establish notability. Speculating that he might become notable in the future with the release of a film is crystal ball gazing, and we don't do that. -- Whpq (talk) 16:48, 9 September 2013 (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.