Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Chey (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   keep. Stifle (talk) 08:16, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Tim Chey
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Procedural nomination following deletion review. Please see Deletion review/Log/2008 October 7 and Articles for deletion/Tim Chey. Note left at DRV. No opinion from me. Carcharoth (talk) 14:32, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions.   —Carcharoth (talk) 14:32, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per nomination (no reason provided to delete). — CharlotteWebb 14:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Commment: Since you don't care about what happens to the article, you shouldn't have nominated it. Schuy m 1 ( talk ) 15:16, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Carcharoth was implementing the consensus arrived at at WP:DRV, which was to relist, so it was perfectly reasonable to nominate this without having his/her own opinion. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:57, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep per references in the article and presented in the previous AfD and DRV. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:57, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete I nominated Tim Chey for deletion (the first AFD) because he does not seem to meet WP:NOTABILITY guidelines. A Google news search does indeed bring up articles, but they are almost all mere passing mentions or simply credits as a director. Others are reviews of his films and not substantially about Chey. One article is an interview with Chey, but it is a UCLA alumni website, so fails WP:RS. There simply isn't significant coverage of Chey, and the sources mentioned at the end of the first AFD do nothing to address that. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:59, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Reviews of the subject's films are articles about his work, which is what makes him notable, rather than his shoe size or favourite colour. For all sorts of people such as politicians, business people, academics, sportspeople, rock stars etc. we accept articles about their work as establishing notability, so why not for film directors? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:15, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * While what you say makes some sense, it doesn't appear to be the rule commonly applied to the notability of directors. If a director's films are remarkable in some way, there will be coverage of the director separate from film reviews, just as there is for politicians, musicians, sportspeople, etc. That doesn't seem to be the case here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:52, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 *  STRONG Keep A review about a Chey film is a review of Chey's work as a director. Since being a director is what his notability is, his films being reviewed is a review of hiw work. It works for me. Pity the poor director whose never got a review. All that aside, he is an AWARD WINNING director. His notability is affirmed. How could the author have missed this????   Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 23:21, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Check the IMDB listing for the 1997 Hamptons International Film Festival - Chey's film did not win. As for the Urban World Festival, an "audience award" from a cannot be judged as equivalent to a juried award, in the same manner that wikis are not acceptable as sources. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:51, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note I did a little work on the article with cleanup, expansion, wikifying, and sourcing.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 02:14, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: The films are notable, but he isn't. Schuy m 1  ( talk ) 12:51, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Thank you for that... as without his directing and writing, the films might have had no notability at all, and thus this reflects his ability and notability. In this case, the two are not separate from each oether... they are mutually supportive of notability. He has been critically acclaimed just as have they... either in reviews, or in his films being reviewed: The Cristian Pulse, Christian Film News, Christain Spotlight on Entertainment, Joel Comm, Film Critic, Hollywood Jesus, New Christain Voices, Praize, Christianity Today, Pass the Popcorn, Ruthless Reviews, Christian Cinema, Alibris. There is enough writen about him, or he in conjunction with his films, to show a distinct notability.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 15:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Plenty to establish notability. Malinaccier P. (talk) 12:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - a director and his films are inextricably linked so notability of the films establishes notability of the director. -- Whpq (talk) 20:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Just as you can't have a notable book without the writer being notable, so is it you can't have a notable movie without its director being notable. Dream Focus (talk) 20:52, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Several editors have equated the notability of a director's films with the notability of the director themselves. I just want to note that this is contrary to both WP:CREATIVE and WP:NOTABILITY, however much it appeals to "common sense". Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply - Perhaps not "equate", but they are definitely related, and acknowledged by bullet point 3 in WP:CREATIVE. A director plays a major role in the creation of a film.  So if the film is a notable film, then he has played a major role in its creation. -- Whpq (talk) 21:22, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you may have missed the relevant part of that bullet point: "...which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". That's exactly what is missing in this case. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:38, 16 October 2008 (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.