Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Stel Pavlou

Keep
I am sorry, Dave, if that offends you. It is your personal attacks and violent wording like this that makes it feel like you have a problem with the author. Just because YOU don't think he is notable, does not change the fact that he is notable in many arenas. And I am only doing my job to protect this article from you. The page was previously questioned 8 years ago and it was determined that Pavlou was in fact notable and the article should remain. That should not be undone. If my edits bothered you, that is a different issue. Michellabellla (talk) 22:00, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Violent wording - Really ? ...., Well if he's notable then prove it.
 * You do realise Wikipedia and AFD is more stricter than 8 years ago right ?, There was no previous AFD as far as I can see. – Davey 2010 Talk 22:30, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I just realized you live in Kent, where Pavlou grew up. Hmm.... Michellabellla (talk) 22:34, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Davey- here is the link to the discussion about keeping Pavlou's page back in Jan 2009. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Stel_Pavlou Michellabellla (talk) 22:42, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Exactly and I've never heard of the bloke .... couldn't of been all that well known then!.,
 * That comment was made by someone who had only been here roughly 2 years but as I said things are alot stricter now and I mean no disrespect to them but the comment wasn't made by an established editor or admin so in that respect his comment means nothing - Anyone could say "Yeah that should be alright" without having any knowledge of the place. – Davey 2010 Talk 23:26, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

This page should NOT be deleted. Stel Pavlou is a prominent writer. Whether anyone likes his work, or likes him personally, is beside the point. PatCadigan (talk) 10:02, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Contested deletion
This page should not be speedily deleted because... (your reason here) --69SwedishMeatballs (talk) 22:07, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

It took two seconds to see that the writer's first movie, Formula 51, staring Samuel L Jackson and Robert Carlyle, was notable for reaching number one in the box office at the time of release, toppling Peter Jackson from the top slot. His second script was an adaptation for David Fincher of Rendezvous with Rama, the Arthur C Clarke novel, for Morgan Freeman. His debut novel Decipher sold into a dozen languages or more, and is considered worthy enough by Wiki to have it's own entry. It seems curious to me that the novels and films in question are worthy of their own wiki entries but the writer of them isn't.
 * Being in films doesn't automatically mean they're notable, Please read WP:GNG. – Davey 2010 Talk 22:31, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! I honestly don't know what the issue is. This is crazy. He work is so well known, that even the UK country's "Liverpool Football Club" recently used a clip from The 51st State as a comical reference. Once this page is taken off if the hit list, I should post that with a reference as well. Michellabellla (talk) 22:32, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

He wasn't in the film. HE WROTE THE BLOODY FILM. Michellabellla (talk) 23:16, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

69SwedishMeatballs (talk) Davy, I don't know you, got nothing against you, I just think there's a misunderstanding here that's probably easy to fix - as I said he wasn't *in* the movie, he wrote it. The movie itself reached #1 at the box office, its grossing figures etc are on IMDB and easily referenceable. It was listed in EMPIRE magazine's top 100 movies of the 00s (I think at 93, something like that) -Empire at the time had a 190,000 print circulation, and a readership conservatively of three-five times that. It was (and still is) the premier movie magazine of the time. He appeared on Breakfast tv in the UK in the promotional run up, and really on the basis of this single thing alone should meet the criterion for inclusion. check the writer credits. Formula 51 made conservatively 28m at the box office and has it's own wiki page where he is cited as the writer When you google "51st State Movie" in quotes to only return full hits, you get 6380 hits, including reviews, notable quotes, bloopers, interviews, script analysis and more. As the writer of the movie, I would trust that these together would mean he passes the notable guidelines, surely? 69SwedishMeatballs (talk) 01:18, 22 March 2017 (UTC)69Swedishetc
 * Hi 69, My fault I hadn't read Michellas comment properly as was busy at Commons as well as other things, Anyway being a writer of a film isn't a free pass to an article, There needs to be reliable and in-depth sources that confirm the writers notability,
 * At present I've found this which is great but not enough - Obviously I've found reviews for the film however most only give Stel a one-bit mention, Another thing is IMDB cannot be used as a reliable and as of 2017 neither can the Daily Mail (although I occasionally do if I can't find a replacement),
 * Another issue is that if sources are found and they are relate to the 51st State film then technically the article can be deleted under WP:BLP1E (IE they're only known for one thing and haven't done anything else that's made them known)


 * Also as a message to everyone I don't know where everyone earlier had come from but I want to state a tons of keeps from new accounts won't save the article and infact the !votes will be ignored .... If sources can be found I would happily withdraw but if everyone here can find various sources (not Wiki articles, not IMDB, not Wikia, not Daily Mail, not one-bit mentions, not magazine stuff, not sources that are all related to the film etc etc etc) then I may consider withdrawing
 * Thanks, – Davey 2010 Talk 02:15, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

69SwedishMeatballs (talk) Okay, I think I'm beginning to understand. ish. Correct me if I'm wrong but the issue is there isn't enough internet traffic about the writer? I'm trying to get a handle on it. I would have thought the combination of the movie (which I think we're agreeing is a notable thing itself, if not for the writer) could be combined with say a trade review of his WH Smith's new talent longlisted novel Decipher the review is from before Kirkus started accepting self published works (back in 2001) when Kirkus was one of the two premier literary journals. The publisher's weekly review was less positive, but cites it as an international bestseller so would that function as two separate notable things? I've found the Guardian newspaper reviewing his second novel, Gene,. And there's weird fun stuff like the Times newspaper including him on their happy birthday announcements. There's independent blog talk about, my favourite on a quick google is entitled Stel Pavlou is an idiot, on a religion/politics blog. Aside from the blog traffic, I'd have thought the Guardian, PW, Kirkus, etc show that it's not a single point of notoriety that ought to be enough. As to where everyone came from, as I mentioned, as someone who had edited Stel in the charitable project Elemental, he reached out. I'm supposed to be working on the new book, so I can't fight a lone crusade (haha) but I genuinely think against the backdrop of stubs and other wikis I come across for other writers, he's actually done a few things of note. I certainly don't want anyone to feel like they're under attack or that there's ill feeling, it just seems that being that his major successes really pre-date this new level of chatter on the internet it is harder to prove notability on those things with other sources. With the new novels just announced from HarperCollins though, 2017 should see more blog traffic and other sources. 69SwedishMeatballs (talk) 10:21, 22 March 2017 (UTC)69SwedishMeatballs

Article Protection
I've got the article unprotected so I would recommend adding sources and improving it, Please don't remove the AFD template - It needs to remain for the duration of the AFD however you can add and remove anything else in the article (within reason),

If anyone removes the AFD template or vandalises the article I'll have it protected again - Use the next 4/5 days to source the article as best as you can,

Thanks. – Davey 2010 Talk 03:37, 22 March 2017 (UTC)