Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fran Estévez

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 keep. Consensus is that the article meets the main notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 14:08, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fran Estévez

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

I don't find sufficient evidence of notability for the subject of this autobiography. —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:11, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm confused by this deletion rationale. Are you aware that if you click on the "news" link above, you immediately see articles on him from Spanish daily newspapers? Based on that, how does he not meet WP:N, exactly? He's an award-winning Spanish film director who's been the subject of multiple independent news stories -- two of which I've added. There may be a COI problem here, but that's a different matter. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:18, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:21, 6 May 2015 (UTC) t[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:22, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When I click the News links, I see 16 links, of which 8 are about one or more other Fran Estévezes. Of the remainder, three, or at most four, have anything substantial to say about this Fran Estévez (as opposed to mentioning his name in passing while discussing one film or another). At best it's a borderline case.

As for the award, the pertinent guideline at WP:NFILM reads "The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking." The footnote leaves open the question of what a "major award" is, while allowing that awards at the Venice and Berlin festivals may qualify. On that basis, I don't know that the Festival Internacional de Cortometrajes de Bueu is at the requisite level. And, yes, I'm being persnickety about it because while autobiographies aren't forbidden, we do repeatedly claim to discourage them strongly, so I feel that applying the guidelines to them rather strictly is justified. —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:44, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, "three or four" articles devoting substantial coverage is enough to satisfy the requirement for multiple coverage for me, and I daresay, WP:GNG. As for the COI issues, no argument there. I had tagged it as such, and for cleanup issues as well, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:50, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A search on News, Books etc, show enough coverage to establish general notability. Metamorfosis seems quite well known. For what it is worth, the Spanish and Galician wikis also have articles on the subject. Yes, it is a bit promotional in tone. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:26, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The other wiki articles are much older, but of course it's possible they were all created by the same COI editor -- we do know he has edited them, logged in. I obviously agree with the keep !vote based on sources. And since warned about COI guidelines, he hasn't attempted to edit or interfere with this Afd. I think it's a case of someone honestly unfamiliar with the rules, here: there's been no attempt to disguise identity with his username. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:18, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikis aren't reliable sources and count for nothing in assessing notability. I guess I understand the point if the point is that no one there has challenged them, but then we don't know what the guidelines are on those sites or how carefully those sites' articles are reviewed. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:20, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:16, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:46, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- Well, I'm certainly not saying that other language wiki articles do anything to establish notability here -- in fact, my comment above was to point out that they may also have COI issues. My !vote remains based solely on WP:GNG, and I maintain that the Spanish-language news coverage is significant enough -- significant enough, in fact, for WP:SNOW. But we shall see. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:55, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG, I added another two refs. Kraxler (talk) 01:02, 30 May 2015 (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.