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 no consensus. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:12, 15 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Mat Hodgson (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is about Hodgson's movies, not about Hodgson. They may or may not be notable, but he has to be notable in his own right, not simply as the producer/director of those movies. WP:NOTINHERITED applies. He is a WP:ROTM producer/director, of which there are many. Fails WP:GNG Fiddle^Timtrent  Faddle^Talk to me 09:57, 14 June 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent  Faddle^Talk to me 09:57, 14 June 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent  Faddle^Talk to me 09:57, 14 June 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent  Faddle^Talk to me 09:57, 14 June 2021 (UTC) reply

• "he has to be notable in his own right, not simply as the producer/director of those movies" How does it work? The person is either known for his body of work, or the person can be famous purely because he or she is a celebrity and is just famous. There are plenty of sources in the article, and highly reliable ones. There is a Guardian article named "Football focus: Queens Park Rangers' Four Year Plan on film" [1]. There is specifically written there: "He pitched a film about their attempts to turn around the struggling, debt-ridden club". Hodgson is cited in this article, it is almost an interview. There are also other sources: [2], [3] - interview with him, [4], [5]. So there are plenty sources on him. Therefore, Keep. Кирилл С1 ( talk) 10:13, 21 June 2021 (UTC) reply

• I want to add the rationale for keeping the article. There was written that his films may or may not be notable. But they are, as they have multiple coverage, including reviews, and in-depth articles about them. See [6] and above urls - United Way (which was narrated by Cantona [7]), [8], [9], [10] - I am Duran. The other thing is that the documentary directors are notable for their work and films. If we see WP:DIRECTORS, it is written in 3 and 4 what his works have to satisfy. Кирилл С1 ( talk) 15:20, 21 June 2021 (UTC) reply

delete insufficient coverage Pipsally ( talk) 14:24, 26 June 2021 (UTC) reply

• I say that there is sufficient coverage and that he satisfies WP:Director. I also would like to point out that some of the examples in WP:ROTM are "A local club supporting a hobby or interest, or a local organization promoting some cause" and "The local festival or other scheduled event that occurs annually". The filmmaker that makes documentaries about one of the biggest clubs in the world does not meet ROTM description. His film about QPR is included in the lists of best films about football [11], [12] ("extraordinary fly-on-the-wall documentary" [13]). There is nothing trivial in filming a documentary about a club that pursues promotion to PL, for four years. Кирилл С1 ( talk) 12:39, 27 June 2021 (UTC) reply

Comment All you're suggesting is that the film is notable. That does not automatically translate to notability for the filmmakers if they're not covered appropriately themselves as individuals in RS. Pipsally ( talk) 08:40, 28 June 2021 (UTC) reply

• Notability of film directors and notability of their work are connected. He is notable due to WP:DIRECTOR to 3 and 4c. And, there are also interviews with him when he tells about the film (see above urls and [14]). Кирилл С1 ( talk) 14:25, 28 June 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.