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.
Failed
WP:SIGCOV References are generally primary, routine announcements for directors who have been in the mainstream for a year. scope_creepTalk 01:18, 18 November 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep GNG is met by references 2 and 3. Some of the others are as characterized by the nom, but GNG is met regardless.
Jclemens (
talk) 04:03, 18 November 2021 (UTC)reply
Ref 2 is a profile and is on one those clickbait x of y sites, that are used to drive adrvertising. It is a short profile. The 3rd reference is the only reference on that page. scope_creepTalk 12:11, 18 November 2021 (UTC)reply
Quality of sources don't seem to bother you. That first one is an annoucement and is not independent. The 2nd one Bertie, part of directing duo Bert and Bertie, told GamesRadar+ isn't independent either, it is part interview, all indicative of an very early careers. They are either reported in new annoucements of work, or connected to somebody else's context. They're isn't more than 1 secondary source here. That is the whole point of the Afd. scope_creepTalk 14:30, 18 November 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep - The two sources from
WP:VARIETY and one from
WP:THR meet the standard of
WP:GNG. These are industry magazines for the industry they work in, so clearly they are considered notable in their own business. --
Krelnik (
talk) 20:54, 18 November 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment Welll I've done my bit for Blighty. I thought it was far too sono since they have been in the mainstream for less than a year and done sweet FA. How notability standards have dropped. Nomination Withdrawn. scope_creepTalk 21:00, 18 November 2021 (UTC)reply
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.
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.
Failed
WP:SIGCOV References are generally primary, routine announcements for directors who have been in the mainstream for a year. scope_creepTalk 01:18, 18 November 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep GNG is met by references 2 and 3. Some of the others are as characterized by the nom, but GNG is met regardless.
Jclemens (
talk) 04:03, 18 November 2021 (UTC)reply
Ref 2 is a profile and is on one those clickbait x of y sites, that are used to drive adrvertising. It is a short profile. The 3rd reference is the only reference on that page. scope_creepTalk 12:11, 18 November 2021 (UTC)reply
Quality of sources don't seem to bother you. That first one is an annoucement and is not independent. The 2nd one Bertie, part of directing duo Bert and Bertie, told GamesRadar+ isn't independent either, it is part interview, all indicative of an very early careers. They are either reported in new annoucements of work, or connected to somebody else's context. They're isn't more than 1 secondary source here. That is the whole point of the Afd. scope_creepTalk 14:30, 18 November 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep - The two sources from
WP:VARIETY and one from
WP:THR meet the standard of
WP:GNG. These are industry magazines for the industry they work in, so clearly they are considered notable in their own business. --
Krelnik (
talk) 20:54, 18 November 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment Welll I've done my bit for Blighty. I thought it was far too sono since they have been in the mainstream for less than a year and done sweet FA. How notability standards have dropped. Nomination Withdrawn. scope_creepTalk 21:00, 18 November 2021 (UTC)reply
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.