Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rusty Nails (filmmaker)

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.

Rusty Nails (filmmaker)

The result was Keep. Hemlock Martinis 06:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article is not properly sourced, contains false information, is the site of an edit-war, is being edited by users and IP addresses who/which are only editing this article and not others. The article is potentially libelous and is in violation of Biographies_of_living_persons. Not only should it be deleted but it should be locked to prevent recreating the article. I have voiced my opinion on this matter in the article's discussion page. I am in contact with the person of who the article refers and if this matter is not dealt with promptly I shall take the next step of contacting Jim Wales. I am sure Mr. Wales is very busy, so let us engage in a discussion about this matter and settle this here amongst ourselves. (AND THIS GOES FOR ALL PREVIOUS EDITORS OF THIS ARTICLE), Your silence in this discussion will only prove your negligence. ~~Engage in this discussion, do not edit the article.~~ Xsxex 06:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC) _{Fixed mal-formed nomination-Wafulz 12:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)}[reply]

Speedy Keep. None of the nominator's reasons can be resolved by deleting the article. It passes WP:N and WP:BIO anyday. This should be on the talk page, not at AfD.Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK)'s FA plea-please have your say! 12:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You are not allowed to tell users not to edit an article. You should also point out how it is potentially libelous, what is incorrect, and why you think it is a flagrant violation of Biographies of Living Persons.-Wafulz 12:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. With the nominator's horrible logic and vague accusations aside, I don't think this meets notability criteria because of a lack of reliable sources- I could only find one student newspaper review, and bunch of interviews with the subject. If I could find third party information on the subject himself, I might change my view.-Wafulz 12:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seems just notable enough to me (The Portland Mercury, Reel Chicago). Interviews with the subject should be acceptable as references if published in a reliable source (Filmmaker Magazine). There does appears to have been some vandalism to the article, but the nominator appears to have some ownership issues with the article by the looks of the history and the talk page. --Canley 13:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Thank you Wafulz for helping to fix the nomination. Also, THANK YOU to the users who have voiced their comments here and have participated in discussion. (As for the other users who have edited the article but have yet to engage in the discussion, again it shows that your only purpose here was to vandalize this article (I.E. users: User:LixLix, User:Lisa55k, User:Wc484, User:Wcheng13, User:Jjrobinson123, User:Delldot, User:Qst, User:Chetblong, User:Rossheth, User:Axlq, User:ArielGold, Special:Contributions/74.123.70.122, Special:Contributions/68.21.9.188, Special:Contributions/66.72.97.179, Special:Contributions/76.224.118.221, Special:Contributions/68.22.192.26, Special:Contributions/68.21.9.102, Special:Contributions/68.22.198.3, Special:Contributions/71.214.151.115, Special:Contributions/67.167.235.185, etc...). OK, to address some issues that have been brought up (1) I don't have ownership issues, the article should be correct or deleted. (again websites such as IMDB cannot be used as a source for information as they are first party, also the articles referenced by User:Canley do not necessitate that this is a notable director. There are thousands if not tens of thousands of directors and not all of them should be written about on wikipedia. What is considered a notable director? If it is decided that Rusty Nails is a notable director than the article should be written only using third party information from newspapers and books (I dont think he is mentioned in any book). (2) I full on disagree with User:Dalejenkins, "It passes WP:N and WP:BIO anyday," on what basis. It completely fails WP:BIO, and we are discussing WP:N. Also what is a speedy keep?
- WP:BIO is a specific version of WP:N. For the purposes of this discussion, they are the same thing. A "speedy keep" is a specific opinion in a deletion discussion for when a person thinks that the nomination does not have any actual deletion rationale presented.-Wafulz 16:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Stop accusing other users of vandalism. Users have no obligation to participate in this discussion. You clearly don't understand the definition of vandalism, so stop throwing the word around.-Wafulz 15:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Is it not vandalism?. By using information from websites these users are compromising the integrity of wikipedia. They have uploaded photos taken from other websites, without permission from the website or the director. They have used information from other websites which is considered to be a violation of wikipedia's policy on biographies. Does this not constitute vandalism? Xsxex 15:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - They are using material from imdb and from published interviews. At worst, they are committing some good-faith, unintentional misinformation. Also, stop rearranging this discussion.-Wafulz 16:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - IMDB usgae on wikipedia. Wafulz (and others). read: Wikipedia:Citing_IMDb. As it says there, IMDB should only be used for hard facts about films, not information about a director. The case here is an example of unacceptible usage of biographic information. (Read unacceptable usage). Again, according to Wikipedia, IMDB is acceptable to use for hard film facts, not trivia about a director. Xsxex 16:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - There is a banner on the top that says "This proposal has been rejected by the community." While Imdb isn't the best source for a birthday, if there are no other reliable sources contradicting it, we can use it.-Wafulz 16:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Rearranging. Why should we let the comments clog up the discussion? There seem to be a lot of them. I move to separate the comments into a subsection. Xsxex 16:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - They're not clogging up the discussion- they are part of it. This isn't a vote. Also I've removed your quote of WP:BIO- it's been linked, we can all read it, we don't need a giant block of text here.-Wafulz 16:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. The vandal edits this article experienced follow a pattern of removing information that is sourced while attempting to make the subject appear less notable. IMDB is a citable source, like it or not. That an article has room for improvement isn't a reason to delete. I find the nominator's arguments specious and his assumption of bad faith disgusting. This article emphatically does not violate WP:BIO and is not libellous; being "potentially" libellous applies to any biography of a living person. I doubt Jimmy Wales would seriously consider a secondhand complaint about a reasonably-written bio from anyone except the article's subject. If Mr "Rusty Nails" himself has a problem with the article, he is welcome to chime in; Xsxex doesn't speak for him. =Axlq 04:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Subject appears to meet WP:BIO based on a google news search which to indicates recognition as a low-budget indie film maker. Content disputes are not a reason for deletion. -- Whpq 23:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Extremely minor actor/filmmaker. Subject is barely important enough to get a listing on IMDB -- and Wikipedia isn't IMDB Lite -- and nowhere near enough importance, impact, or coverage to deserve coverage by an encyclopedia. --Calton | Talk 01:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, although I disagree with all of the nominator's reasons, I don't think Mr. Nails or his films are sufficiently notable. NawlinWiki 18:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nabla 21:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

relisting - Not following "proper" process is not a reason to keep, mostly because the deletion discussion went on anyway. Acusations of vandalism should go to WP:AN/I, content disputes shoould go to to the article's talk page and to WP:RfC. In the middle of all that there is still a discussion going on, with few but opposing opinions stated. Given this is covered by WP:BLP we better have more opinions, on the safe side.

Please stay on topic: should this be kept or deleted and why? Thanks. - Nabla 21:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - article is evidently notable per Canley. FIXIT, don't DELETEIT because it ain't perfect right now. — xDanielx^Talk 23:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not sure who gets the Oscar for "Most dramatic acting in a Wikipedia debate" but this is all very exciting. While I had not heard about Rusty Nails, it's evident from the controversy that he must be fairly notable. In addition, it's nice to see some students of film in the AfD forum. Mandsford 01:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per xDanielx. Mathmo ^Talk 03:42, 9 August 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.