Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nathyn Brendan Masters

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 on main article, delete others. Please ask if anyone would like any of the others userfied, if there is anything useful to merge into the main article. Black Kite (t) (c) 12:11, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nathyn Brendan Masters

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

Possible autobiographical or paid article about the subject. Article creator's first edit was to proclaim that they did "basic publicity for film and video actors". Google search on the subject brings up only 164 unique results - some minor discussion on a few of his films, but little in the way of significant coverage of the individual. The following articles have similar notability problems, and were all created in within a short period of time by the same editor, all promoting subjects connected to Masters:

TheRealFennShysa (talk) 22:23, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the articles I've sighted they actually fall within the guidelines. 164 unique results isn't like saying they're no information about him and in fact he is noteworthy for the things mentioned in the article. And wikipedia isn't being used to promote these things. I'm just adding them as facts. I'm linking the articles together as I go along and others have the right to add to it or subtract if the information is incorrect. —Preceding Rmavers comment added by Rmavers (talk • contribs) 00:10, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I notice you're disputing some of my info on the comic book characters. I'm totally lost on this one. I wouldn't even know where to begin save for saying I don't know why they would need to be deleted. Has anyone else been threatened for deletion of a comic book character. I see all the Marvel and DC characters are fine, Strangers in Paradise and Vampirella so I don't see why these characters aren't fit to be in the Wiki Comic project just because they're new and not from a major company.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmavers (talk • contribs)

~~Delete all~~ currently all articles fail notability criteria WP:BIO, WP:FILMNOT, none of the articles have indication of non-trivial third party sources. If such a source were to be found for some there would be a strong case for merging some of the character articles.--Salix (talk): 09:38, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Week keep Masters, going soft in my old age. Of the references 1 does seem to be substantial independent third party source dvdverdict, other still seem week to me, often looking like they have just rephrased a press-release. The comics don't seem to have made much impact I've not seen any reviews of them, the publishing house has just release those three comics which just are not notable enough for separate articles. All the other articles could be merged into NBM.--Salix (talk): 19:29, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Third Party sources added... There are several independent sources in the Nathyn Brendan Masters article including IMDB, Mac Daily News, The Chicago Redeye, moviesonline and Podcastingnews.com. Are you implying that Nathyn Masters is involved in all these sites and a Chicago Newspaper owned by Tribune? Now that's just ridiculous. For the "Epitaph: Bread and Salt" article I used IMDB, I've yet to add sources "horrornews.net" "vampireshow.com" "vampirenews" "FarEastfilm.com and "Chainsaw Mafia". I'll do these now. —Preceding Rmavers comment added by Rmavers (talk • contribs) 15:30, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More Third Party sources... I've added more sources to the article but these are not "trivial". These sources back up the information that I'm putting online. How are they trivial? I'll tackle some of the other pages soon. —Preceding Rmavers comment added by Rmavers (talk • contribs) 15:55, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you read WP:FILMNOT you will find Trivial coverage, such as newspaper listings of screening times and venues, "capsule reviews," plot summaries without critical commentary, or listings in comprehensive film guides such as "Leonard Maltin's Movie Guide," "Time Out Film Guide," or the Internet Movie Database. So IMDB is specifically excluded and the Far East Films article seems to be a plot summaries without critical commentary. The bar is set quite high for films and other media on wikipedia, IMDB will be comprehensive wikipedia is for films which standout in someway.--Salix (talk): 16:49, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Taken In Context When taken in context to the article these sources are reasonable. They prove that the films exist and were out in the time stated (fact). So if someone challenges and says "He didn't make one of the first (possibly THE FIRST) features on a DVX100" (A challenge of notability) the film's date would say otherwise and can be crossed referenced with other features shot at that time. Also the same is true for "Wages of Sin" being the first film created with Apple TV and mind. The date is important in these issues. Also IMDB's distribution list shows what films were picked up. It is "verifiable". Master's first film, possibly the first film shot on the DVX100 (the first pro-consumer camera with 24p capability, was shot for $800 and picked up by York Distribution. The Movieonline mention ads to it being "verifiable". While "The bar is set quite high for films and other media on wikipedia" Wiki still asks for things to be "verifiable" and therefore there is no reason that sources don't show verifiability. In fact it's just the opposite. Again, taken in context. Rmavers (talk) 17:23, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki-Irony Before I ever started doing wiki pages this was on Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Sunday_Law and guess whose mentioned under Cultural references. It states clearly: "Marcussen's National Sunday Law was in part the inspiration for the 2004 low-budget action movie, The 4th Beast: Mask of the Antichrist. Director Nathyn Masters, an alum of Chicago's Columbia College recounts" This was stated years ago. (And I too will now use this for my article). In light of this, I believe the notability challenge should end here. On WIKIPEDIA ITSELF Masters is used as a cultural reference in an article about Pastor Marcussen before I ever started doing the Master's Wiki. I would like to also point out this article written in 2004: http://christianfilmnews.com/1167/the-4th-beast/ the mention on Wikipedia itself is not trivial as it's at the heart of the matter and the other articles are independent sources and do include "critical commentary". Rmavers (talk) 17:44, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep main article on the author, and consider the others. This is not an appropriate combination AfD nomination because the notability of the various article subjects is likely to be very unequal. Clearly he as an author is more important than any of his individual works, which are in turn more important than the individual characters in them. The reasonable net step after keeping this would be to examine the articles on his works, because if they are deleted the deletion of the characters article is straightforward. But I would hope before that time someone knowledgable will merge them as appropriate if possible--if the span multiple works, this can be fairly tricky to accomplish . DGG ( talk ) 04:23, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep author, consider others as per DGG. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:39, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 02:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto: Keep author, consider others as per DGG. But most of the other entries are about comicbook characters. —Preceding Rmavers comment added by Rmavers (talk • contribs) 05:04, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all; promo. Wile E. Heresiarch (talk) 05:50, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Witch Hunt at this point I've already proven notability based on Wikipedia itself. It's a witch hunt at this point. Rmavers (talk) 06:01, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Concerns about non trivial third party sources in the original article remains relevant, and it appears there's been very little actual input at this AfD. Shadowjams (talk) 10:54, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nathyn Brendan Masters, I haven't picked through the rest. Barely-there sourcing, and there is no such thing as "proving notability based on Wikipedia itself", notability is based on significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Hairhorn (talk) 13:45, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@ Hairhorn and I have indeed proven such. This is basically going to be a gang up on a new member. I know how this goes, it happens in almost every new forum or what have you I go on. It's nothing new. The "other material" was for the comic project which is on going. With other comic book companies. Even if that is the case the NBM has significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject which can be proven by the links and coverage on the web. Just because a person isn't famous as Snookie doesn't mean they aren't significant. In fact they may be worth more to the society. And the coverage is for the NBM page is anything, but barely there.Rmavers (talk) 16:59, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I count at least 7 articles that are significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject]] which can be proven by the links and coverage on the web. You're no even looking at the stuff any more you're just voting delete. There's several articles and reviews not just blurbs. Rmavers (talk) 16:34, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Looking at diffs from the time of nomination to now, it looks like there are two new sources, Christian Film News and Columbia Chronicle, that weren't present when the article was nominated for deletion. I'm going to go through the articles in depth; however, since this is day seven since the nomination, I wanted to get this out there to the closing admin that there has been improvement from the time of nomination. —C.Fred (talk) 17:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nathyn Brendan Masters, delete the rest. Let me start with the article on Masters. I see enough sources to satisfy WP:GNG. I think the best course of action is to turn this into a good article by boosting it with reliable sources. Focus on what can be independently verified first. The strength of this article, especially compared to the others in this nomination, is that there are independent, reliable sources that have written about him and his work.

The rest of the articles cover Masters' self-publishing company (Night Phoenix Press), a film (Epitaph: Bread and Salt), a comic book series (Epitaph (comic book series), and a slew of comic characters. While Masters' article passed WP:GNG, the articles on the company and film fail it. The only references I see there are IMDB and press releases, so it's impossible to demonstrate significant coverage in independent sources based on those.

The article on the comic book series and the characters suffer from the flaw of being entirely in-universe and not presenting any real-world context. (One of them, Adam Hassan, doesn't give any context whatsoever.) If this were the Nathyn Brendan Masters Wiki, we'd have no problem—we could do a nice compendium of every character in the series. However, this is a general encyclopedia, and none of the characters are shown to have any real-world context or relevance whatsoever. I can't even recommend merging these back into the comic book series article—it would just weigh that article down with in-universe detail when it's needing demonstration of significance in the (real) world at large. —C.Fred (talk) 17:35, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete everything but the biography, and then renominate if necessary. At the moment it's clear enough the other articles lack significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject and therefore are non-notable. PhilKnight (talk) 00:46, 13 November 2010 (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.