Content deleted Content added
mNo edit summary |
mNo edit summary |
||
Line 26: | Line 26: | ||
::As to your claim that this "director has greater historical importance and that's what Wikipedia is for", I'm sorry but that is just your personal opinion. Wikipedia is not here to assign historical importance on the basis of personal opinions. I could actually agree with you about the person's importance! But personal opinions about notability do not matter in the slightest in Wikipedia. (I'm sure you're aware of [[WP:AADD|this]].) We need ''[[WP:RS|sources]]''. Wikipedia clearly and explicitly does ''not'' aspire to be a "complete" encyclopaedia, such as Britannica, or other such. Wikipedia is written by the public, essentially, on the basis not of contributors' personal opinions or expertise but on the basis of [[WP:RS|third-party, independent, significant sources]]. "Noble motives" are what has brought all of us here to contribute but they're ''not'' the decider on '''notability'''. -[[User:The Gnome|The Gnome]] ([[User talk:The Gnome|talk]]) 11:17, 26 April 2024 (UTC) |
::As to your claim that this "director has greater historical importance and that's what Wikipedia is for", I'm sorry but that is just your personal opinion. Wikipedia is not here to assign historical importance on the basis of personal opinions. I could actually agree with you about the person's importance! But personal opinions about notability do not matter in the slightest in Wikipedia. (I'm sure you're aware of [[WP:AADD|this]].) We need ''[[WP:RS|sources]]''. Wikipedia clearly and explicitly does ''not'' aspire to be a "complete" encyclopaedia, such as Britannica, or other such. Wikipedia is written by the public, essentially, on the basis not of contributors' personal opinions or expertise but on the basis of [[WP:RS|third-party, independent, significant sources]]. "Noble motives" are what has brought all of us here to contribute but they're ''not'' the decider on '''notability'''. -[[User:The Gnome|The Gnome]] ([[User talk:The Gnome|talk]]) 11:17, 26 April 2024 (UTC) |
||
::: I didn't ment to offend anyone. I suggest the pepole who are against him need watch his movies before they decide. There are critics, and bloggers who are hardcore movie fans who liked his movies and wrote positive and detailed reviews about them and this is a sufficient indication in my opinion. [[User:מתיאל|מתיאל]] ([[User talk:מתיאל|talk]]) 11:52, 26 April 2024 (UTC)מתיאל |
::: I didn't ment to offend anyone. I suggest the pepole who are against him need watch his movies before they decide. There are critics, and bloggers who are hardcore movie fans who liked his movies and wrote positive and detailed reviews about them and this is a sufficient indication in my opinion. [[User:מתיאל|מתיאל]] ([[User talk:מתיאל|talk]]) 11:52, 26 April 2024 (UTC)מתיאל |
||
::::Another thing, when people (not you) write nasty things to me on my page and act like bullies and work to lower the value of an artist who has proof of his successes, how should that be interpreted? There is a behavior of some users that is necessarily forceful. Why remove an entry on a film director? This is beyond my moral perception. [[User:מתיאל|מתיאל]] ([[User talk:מתיאל|talk]]) 11:57, 26 April 2024 (UTC)מתיאל |
Revision as of 11:57, 26 April 2024
Mars Roberge
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Mars Roberge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Biography with no evidence of notability, but that has persisted for quite a while. Sadads (talk) 01:52, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: Not enough coverage to meet film notability, this [1] and a review [2] on a site I don't see listed as a RS over at Project Film [3]. Oaktree b (talk) 02:02, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Canada, California, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:26, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: Director of at least 2 apparently notable films that received coverage, so that WP:DIRECTOR is met in my view. Trimming the page seems necessary, though. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:55, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- I'd truly like to know which of the WP:DIRECTOR criteria are met: (A)
an important figure...widely cited by peers or successors
Nope. (B)originated a significant new concept, theory, or technique
None that we're aware of. (C)created -or played a major role in co-creating- a significant or well-known work
There are 2 films directed by Roberge that have Wikipedia pages of their own but that does not mean that their director is worthy of an article himself. First of all, we need independent notability, and, segundo, the films might be Wikinotable but they are certainly not some "significant" work. And (D)[his] work has become a significant monument, been part of a significant exhibition, won significant critical attention, or been represented within permanent collections
No, no, no, and no. -The Gnome (talk) 14:42, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- I'd truly like to know which of the WP:DIRECTOR criteria are met: (A)
- Keep per Mushy Yank. Marokwitz (talk) 12:34, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. Subject fails WP:GNG and is not saved by WP:ARTIST. Wikipedia is not a directory of everything. Nor is it a collection of indiscriminate information. Completists, and I am one, please look elsewhere! -The Gnome (talk) 14:42, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- I'm wondering if this article is getting edited with a bot or an outside script rather than by a person doing normal edits. Please see the major contributor's talk page. I am wondering why he continues to add information, mark every edit as "minor" despite several warnings. This suggests script driven editing. Graywalls (talk) 13:39, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep I totally agree with Mushy Yank. Although an underground producer and filmmaker - he is still well known in the film industry. See e.g. his IMDB profile. GidiD (talk) 16:24, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
- IMDB can often be used as a source of information but not as proof of notability. IMDB offers, just like Wikipedia, audience-created content. What Wikipedia demands are not reputations but numerous, significant, independent, third-partysources. You are totally welcome to locate and post them up and make people change their minds. -The Gnome (talk) 16:40, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: Mars Roberge is an emerging voice and the l.a underground filmmaking scene, and also won some prizes and gained some good reviews and recognition Fabiorahamim (talk) 18:19, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:13, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- I must say that I am shocked by the enthusiasm of some participants to delete an article about a real film director. Erasing artists is something typical of dictatorships, 1950s style. Have you seen his movies? Is a director who makes kitsch films and is more successful worthy of value? The high-quality and less popular director has greater historical importance and that's what Wikipedia is for. Not for censorship or promoting kitschy pop. Nor does it matter the identity of the author of the entry and what his editing style is. Only relevant arguments. There are criteria for evaluating works of art and his films certainly meet them. For a better world, we need to create a community that promotes quality culture and deals with quality criteria. A community that acts for noble motives only! מתיאל (talk) 09:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC)מתיאל
- I find your comments sad and insulting. I reject your accusation of "enthusiasm" as a motivator for my opinion. This verges on a personal insult, because it is presented in tandem with your insinuations about me or others with whose suggestions you do not agree as supporters of "dictatorships." I'd greatly appreciate if you retract these personal attacks and concentrate on the discussion about the issues at hand.
- As to your claim that this "director has greater historical importance and that's what Wikipedia is for", I'm sorry but that is just your personal opinion. Wikipedia is not here to assign historical importance on the basis of personal opinions. I could actually agree with you about the person's importance! But personal opinions about notability do not matter in the slightest in Wikipedia. (I'm sure you're aware of this.) We need sources. Wikipedia clearly and explicitly does not aspire to be a "complete" encyclopaedia, such as Britannica, or other such. Wikipedia is written by the public, essentially, on the basis not of contributors' personal opinions or expertise but on the basis of third-party, independent, significant sources. "Noble motives" are what has brought all of us here to contribute but they're not the decider on notability. -The Gnome (talk) 11:17, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- I didn't ment to offend anyone. I suggest the pepole who are against him need watch his movies before they decide. There are critics, and bloggers who are hardcore movie fans who liked his movies and wrote positive and detailed reviews about them and this is a sufficient indication in my opinion. מתיאל (talk) 11:52, 26 April 2024 (UTC)מתיאל
- Another thing, when people (not you) write nasty things to me on my page and act like bullies and work to lower the value of an artist who has proof of his successes, how should that be interpreted? There is a behavior of some users that is necessarily forceful. Why remove an entry on a film director? This is beyond my moral perception. מתיאל (talk) 11:57, 26 April 2024 (UTC)מתיאל
- I didn't ment to offend anyone. I suggest the pepole who are against him need watch his movies before they decide. There are critics, and bloggers who are hardcore movie fans who liked his movies and wrote positive and detailed reviews about them and this is a sufficient indication in my opinion. מתיאל (talk) 11:52, 26 April 2024 (UTC)מתיאל