Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Kingsley


 * 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. Even after discounting commentary from single-purpose accounts, there is a rough consensus for retention, definitely not to delete. –MuZemike 17:32, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Tom Kingsley

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable film director lacking GHits and GNEWs of substance. The existing references are not independent and consist of PR statements and items taken from film website. Fails WP:BIO. red dog six (talk) 04:00, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - Kingsley is clearly notable, as you will see if you read some of the references - which, contrary to your assertion, are almost all independently sourced, many from major national or industry publications. Easily passes WP:BIO. Peruginionio (talk) 04:10, 18 November 2011 (UTC)Peruginionio (talk) 04:09, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - Here is my take on the references. #1-IMDB is not an independent reference. #2-Press releases are not independent references. #3-Not really a significant reference.#4-Blogs are generally not accepted as accepted as independent references. #5-This is not an independent reference and I am not sure the awards is significant enough. #6-8, Blogs are generally not accepted as accepted as independent references. #9-Does not support the text. #10-Not sure where this is from.#11-Not a secondary source.#12-15,About the film not the individual.#16-Not a significant reference.#17-Not really a significant reference.  red dog six  (talk) 04:30, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - #1 - Please explain why this is not independent. #2 It's not a press release; it's a well-respected industry website. #3 Significance isn't the issue in this case; this link is just to corroborate the point being made in that sentence. #4 See 3. #5 Please explain why this is not independent. #6-8 See 2. #9 It's a reference to the phrase "well-received". #10 It's from Shots Magazine, a film magazine. #12-15 Firstly, that's not entirely true. Second, according to point 3 of WP:FILMMAKER, that shouldn't matter: ""The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject… of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews."" #16 See 3. #17 See 3. Peruginionio (talk) 05:10, 18 November 2011 (UTC)Peruginionio


 * Comment I've just had a re-read of WP:BIO, and I'm really gobsmacked you're saying he doesn't fulfil its criteria! Take point 3 of WP:FILMMAKER: "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject… of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Hard to really see how he *doesn't* fulfil that criteria. See the following appraisals of Kingsley's work from independent sources:
 * 1) http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2011/nov/10/black-pond-film-review 2) http://www.littlewhitelies.co.uk/theatrical-reviews/black-pond-16971 3) http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/arts/film/reviews/article3222821.ece (PAYWALL) 4) http://www.timeout.com/film/reviews/91251/black_pond.html 5) http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/reviews/first-night-black-pond-raindance-festival-london-2364680.html 6) http://electronicfarmyard.com/games-and-movies/filmreviews/raindance-film-review-black-pond/ 7) http://www.list.co.uk/article/38696-black-pond/ 8) http://blackpondfilm.com/evening%20standard.jpg 9) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/filmreviews/8881957/Tabloid-Trespass-Black-Pond-film-reviews.html 10) http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2011/nov/12/this-weeks-new-films 11) http://bugvideos.tv/Attachments/002090/BUG%2020%20programme%20notes.pdf 12) http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/will-sharpe-amp-tom-kingsley-chris-langham-was-our-first-choice-2364269.html 13) http://www.promonews.tv/2011/11/15/black-pond-by-tom-kingsley-will-sharpe-%E2%80%93-at-cinemas/ 14) http://www.promonews.tv/2010/02/17/mujeres%E2%80%99-reyerta-by-tom-kingsley/ 15) http://www.promonews.tv/2010/05/26/don-fardon%E2%80%99s-im-alive-by-tom-kingsley/ 16) http://www.promonews.tv/2010/06/23/darwin-deez%E2%80%99s-up-in-the-clouds-by-tom-kingsley/ 17) http://youngdirectoraward.wordpress.com/2010/09/14/searchlight-tom-kingsley/ 18) http://www.tomkingsley.com/shots%20print%20preview.pdf 19) http://www.promonews.tv/2010/09/20/uk-music-video-awards-2010-here-are-the-nominations/ 20) http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2011/sep/25/chris-langham-interview — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peruginionio (talk • contribs) 04:35, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - One full-length film is not a "significant or well-known work" nor "has the individual created a [significant] body of work". Sorry  red dog six  (talk) 05:18, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete The actors in his one film might be notable, but he is not. Making one film which has "novelty value" because of Chris Langham is bound to get newspaper coverage. The man himself does not satisfy Wikipedia notability guidelines at all. doktorb wordsdeeds 08:15, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - The presence of Chris Langham might helped generate the initial publicity but since then the film has built up very strong critical support and the focus has changed to the directors - their age and their accomplishment. In any case Tom Kingsley has a reputation in the music video world as an accomplished young director and one to watch.  His innovative use of animation and graphics mixed with live action (which is used in Black Pond) has been a notable feature of his early work.  I remember reading about his theatrical direction when still at Cambridge so this guy is no one-trick pony.  To my mind he clearly satisfies WP:BIO.  J.thurloe (talk) 10:20, 18 November 2011 (UTC) — J.thurloe (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep WP:BIO 3. "The person has created... a significant or well-known work...that has been the subject of... multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." including:
 * The Guardian. Black Pond - review by Peter Bradshaw. "A first time British feature that is a deeply eccentric, haunting marvel".
 * The Times. Black Pond. "a wicked, deadpan dissection of middle-class insincerity"
 * The Independent. The Arts Diary. "a funny and very well-observed low budget British movie," http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/reviews/first-night-black-pond-raindance-festival-london-2364680.html?origin=internalSearch
 * Eye For Film. Black Pond - review by Paul Griffiths. Only ***, but "an intriguingly idiosyncratic debut".
 * "Multiple independent periodical reviews": check. Notable: yes. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:01, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Sorry but I can't see how this person doesn't satisfy the notability criteria of WP:BIO. He was shortlisted for Best New Director at the 2010 Music Video Awards for his work creating and directing music video for which he has been called "a very promising talent" and a "rising star" and his feature-length "Black Pond" has become a "well known work" in the UK nominated for the 2011 British Independent Film Awards, and at the Raindance Film Festival.  The 'significant critical attention' received from 'multiple independent reviews' and cited above are all from major national newspapers which would seem to satisfy both criteria's 3 and 4.Wellingtonview (talk) 17:20, 18 November 2011 (UTC) — Wellingtonview (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 19 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - Passes WP:ANYBIO.--Cavarrone (talk) 10:10, 28 November 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.