Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bernard Edlington (2nd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Yama88 (talk | contribs) at 13:55, 25 July 2008 (→‎Bernard Edlington). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Bernard Edlington

AfDs for this article:
Bernard Edlington (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Deleted by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bernard Edlington and messily again at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bernard Edlington2 which went to DRV which overturned on procedural grounds: the article is different from the 2007 and the AfD was not allowed to run properly. However: the article, the deletion review and the deleted version were all the work of the same editor, who has few other contributions to the project. The editor's name is Nexusb, and guess what the subject's company is called? Yes, you guessed it, Nexus. So it is not stretching the bounds of credulity at all to infer that Nexusb is someone from Nexus whose name starts with B. Maybe even Bernard, you never know. WP:COI, WP:SPA and possible WP:AUTO aside, the assertions of notability are not noticeably stronger than when previously deleted, and fall well short of compelling. Not CSD#A7 material, but several at DRV felt that it fell below WP:N by a tidy margin. I agree, and consensus is to relist, so here it is. Guy (Help!) 19:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • weak delete Guy makes a good case but some of the claims made in the article are the sort of thing that normally lead to separate reliable sources. However, the repeated attempts to recreate this article suggest that such sources do not exist. If further sourcing can be presented I'll likely change my mind. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There really weren't repeated attempts to recreate the article. An admin undeleted the article and moved it to userspace, the user worked on it for about a year and decided to try it in main space. That's all there was to it, and that's pretty normal for a user draft. -- Ned Scott 06:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Being an artist isn't notable, of itself. Being an innovative or celebrated artist is, as per WP:CREATIVE. I can see how this one might be with only the slightest nod in that direction, but I'm not seeing it from the article as it stands. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and no reason given. Please check why this article being deleted for the last two times. Raymond "Giggs" Ko 09:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepIf all the sources are true then I do see notability. His work on the first live election broadcast using a virtual set alone at least is notable. The comment about sources, could be said of any article. First you dispute the sources then AfD. If you cannot find the sources yourself, you can ask the creator or the sources themselves for proof.Charicoo3 (talk) 09:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This template must be substituted. WWGB (talk) 10:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • KeepNeeds more information. There is no real info on the bigger stuff he did. One line for the long time AR exhibit he make at the national museum in Unzendake? Where is the info on the techniques used in last weekends film? Came to this page after I heard about it, but none of these articles are quoted, need more sources.10:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)Chiewan (talk)

This template must be substituted. WWGB (talk) 10:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. He may have an interesting and varied career, but I don't see notability. WWGB (talk) 10:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but expand. I'm not sure what the article looked like when this AFD was launched, but I'm seeing multiple sources cited (the fact not all are available online is irrelevant), plus involvement in major productions. I agree it should play this up a bit more, rather than it being more or less a CV of his work. 23skidoo (talk) 12:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A sufficient number of major productions and installations. DGG (talk) 18:11, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Completely non-notable. Working on some notable productions does not mean he is notable himself. Anyone who gets a job at a TV or film production company will get their name on lots of credits for productions. They all get credits. That does not mean the person themselves is notable, and we must draw that important distinction. Look at the hundreds of people on the credits of Batman. Do they all deserve a Wiki article? A film credit or IMDB entry is not notability. Look at the article itself. He hasn't done anything, and he actually has relatively few credits. The line that says he is "creating new procedural based rendering pipelines" sounds fabulous, but is just fluff. Fancy language that says he is checking that one brand of software works with another. Note there are no online references that mention his name beyond just a credit. Not one supplied. That means not notable.--Lester 21:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Actually I thought published articles carry more weight than online ones, no? Some admins opinions regarding notability seem to have a very western bias WP:IDONTKNOWIT, even systemic bias maybe you should ask someone from Japan, or some proof if you dispute the sources. Yes a credit is just a credit, but with backed up articles that is a different thing.

Unfortunately the only thing I have against the article is I think English speakers in Japan are easier to cover on Wikipedia. It's hard to create a bio. Much harder if it's in another language, I am sure the creator took a long time to make the page so for that reason alone he/she may have more of a vested interest than a native English speaker, maybe even a good reason for restoration? Yama88 (talk) 05:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC) This template must be substituted.Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anyone claiming that his work isn't notable because it was on Japanese TV they're unfamiliar with, but rather because it's unclear what notable contribution this particular person made, and why that was more notable than mere employment in TV. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am very sorry if I was unclear, I did not mention anything regarding Japanese TV. What I meant by systemic bias was most of the sources are from Japanese published articles and the quick assumption that foreign published articles are insignificant. Honestly I also think the document is fairly slim, however it has been backed up. I just think you should be fair regarding foreign publications. Also if you read the article properly the guy is not a TV employee at all, it says that is where his career started. His achievements since 1997 are in (I assume mostly) feature film. The achievements are clear too describing "nature, motion and design with his own software and algorithms" with reference to published material.Yama88 (talk) 13:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, no real case for notability here - I fail to see why he's more notable than the hundreds of other visual effects people out there. For all we know, his work on the productions listed could have involved making coffee for the rest of the production crew. Would not appear to meet the WP:CREATIVE notability guideline.. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bernard_Edlington_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=227830333"