Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hans Canosa (2nd nomination)

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. (non-admin closure) HurricaneFan 25 00:03, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hans_Canosa

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

Non Notable. No changes since last deletion on 2007 except a film "released in Japan" which "8,598 watched" according to its wiki page. There are Youtube videos that get more views than that. — Rothko66 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 December 2. Snotbot t • c » 14:04, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and encourage continued improvements. Originally only a 3-sentence stub in 2007, this was redirected at that time per a very short 3-person AFD.[1] Last year IP 189.195.120.180 reverted the redirect and began expanding the original stub article somewhat,[2] and in searches now, we can easily find he and his work discussed in multiple secondary sources to meet WP:GNG for that coverage and WP:FILMMAKER for his works themselves receiving commentary and review. We can look at Film Threat[3] The List[4] and Digital Content[5] that were external links for the original stub which could have allowed sorced exapnsion back then... and add those to the additonal sources found in searches,[6] and we might detrmine we have notability enough to allow it to remain and grow through regular editing. This article has some terrific WP:POTENTIAL. I do not know who the 3-lifetime-edits nominator is, but I find flaws in his nomination statement... with its beginning with WP:JNN and then his stating that the only change in the filmmaker's career was another film. Even if a filmmaker is not prolific, we gauge notability upon coverage of that individual and coverage of their works. This could have been improved back in 2007 and there's even more available to improve in 2011. I will add that what was redirected in 2007, has already become a much better article, and that the nominator Rothko66 appears to an new acount for the Rothko65 whose last edit was in 2007. We have two "Rothko" users with interest in this article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:43, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Was a vanity article in 2007 and continues to be such. WP:FILMMAKER is not met. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.104.113.41 (talk) 22:35, 2 December 2011 (UTC) — 193.104.113.41 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
The 3 sentences that were redirected in 2007 were three simple, neutral, and verifiable statements. And since its expansion in 2010, it has remained neutral, has been expanded and sourced further while remaining neutral. There is even more that can be done, but being neutral, encyclopedic, and properly sourced to meet WP:GNG and WP:FILMMAKER does not somehow equate to "vanity". Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:07, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The point here is not whether statements are verifiable, but if the person involved is notable or not. We cannot give everyone that directs one reviewed film their own wiki article. Need to see more notable work before this person can be viewed as "notable". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.229.66.60 (talk) 06:56, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes, he's not a profilic author, but I believe he passes WP:FILMAKER as "The person's work(...)has won significant critical attention" and as he "has created (...) a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject (...) of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.". --Cavarrone (talk) 09:36, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is no body of work to justify the inclusion of the director alone. Merge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.104.113.46 (talk) 16:40, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:FILMAKER does not require it. It says "significant or well-known work, or collective body of work". Howewer he directed three movies, not just one.--Cavarrone (talk) 16:57, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per MichaelQSchmidt. Rlendog (talk) 18:25, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The reasons given for deletion are not valid. I consider this borderline, and a matter of judgment, but when judgment is necessary in this field I rely of that of MQS. DGG ( talk ) 05:06, 9 December 2011 (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.