- 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 Delete both. —Wknight94 (talk) 10:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Matthew Lessner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- Darling Darling (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Appears to fail notability guidelines. Basically just a smalltime filmmaker with a couple of awards under his belt. ghits: [1] NMChico24 04:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- How does one judge small time? For one I came across Mr. Lessner's forthcoming documentary regarding colony collapse disorder. To my knowledge he is the only filmmaker working on this subject. It is by the way, very important. In our current agricultural system honeybees are required for more than a third of our diet (of that is included most of the fruits and vegetables that we enjoy). Without the bees many of these are gone, period. Also I understand his films to be well received across the world. He also had the foresight to spot the talent of Michael Cera and cast him years before he hit the big time as much as he has now. I think he very much meets the notability guidelines.
Furthermore, we begin to enter very dangerous territory when the importance of individuals, subjects or ideas is judged by a simple google search or more generally its prevalence on the internet. Citing a google search as not producing enough hits to justify his notability should carry little weight. Things that are not on the internet are still important and this must not be overlooked. By the standards that you propose Paris Hilton and Lindsey Lohan are of greater importance and "notability" than the genocide in Darfur. Also by this standard Lohan and Hilton are astronomically more important than the fact that the United States government still uses depleted uranium munitions causing horrendous deformations, cancers and painful deaths among the young and old [2] [3] [4] (note the number of hits returned). Google is not the divine source of notability, there must be space for others things to be included. Lastly, how many hits does one need? I checked the google search and it appears that Mr. Lessner garners quite a few hits himself. When does it become "enough" to be notable.
I would stronly urge those that will be responsible for this decision to leave this page up.
--Salvor Mallow 05:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]- Only edits from this contributor involve this subject. Possible conflict of interest? --NMChico24 06:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If you'd look, though perhaps you aren't able to, I only created my account yesterday. I haven't had the time to contribute more to wikipedia and if this is the response I am likely to get (as my interests regarding contributing to this medium do not follow popular or well-known subjects) I may be discouraged from doing so in the future. That is also very speculative and doesn't address the issues raised above. I love wikipedia and think that it is an amazing, exciting and hopeful innovation but is that really the only response to the points that I raise above? --Salvor Mallow 06:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Despite what you may believe, it is pertinent. To address your concerns above, notability doesn't rub off. Colony collapse disorder is important, but a filmmaker working on the topic is not importantized by association. As for your other points, I consider them to be somewhat irrelevant. Google hits should be used, should, mark you (some editors misuse them) be used to gauge existence of information across a wide variety of sources, not as a yardstick. In other words, if something has 2 google hits, it's probably less notable than something with 20,000 hits. But if something has 20,000 hits, it's not necessarily less notable than something with 200,000 hits. And no, we don't use Google as our sole guideline, despite what some critics would tell you. For something like the genocide at Darfur, it'd be a useless guideline indeed, since there are copious amounts of media coverage, official statements from organizations running the gamut from national to global, etc. The same deal with DPUs (I didn't appreciate your blatant appeal to emotion re: the deformed, cancerous children and elderly up there, btw). But for someone like a filmmaker, whose work is by necessity disseminated in the media in one way or another, low google hits are a warning sign, doubly so in the absence of third-party sources. It is out of this concern that AFDs are raised. They're not an absolute verdict of "worthlessness", that's what WP:CSD#A7 is for. Just my two cents. --Agamemnon2 13:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Non-notable, does not meet WP:BIO. Maybe in a few years when career is established. --WebHamster 10:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Non-notable bio. Keb25 22:20, 5 September 2007 (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.