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 of the debate was keep (no consensus). Sjakkalle(Check!) 08:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I do not believe that the article in question is sufficiently notable to merit inclusion in Wikipedia. — Mike • 03:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
neutral has a link to IMDB, but doesn't seem to have any real claim to notability. MichaelBillington 05:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article includes enough information to assert a claim to notability. The external links provided give some support to that. The nomination does not provide sufficient reasoning to persuade me that this ought to be deleted. Notability is a concern, but it is not the sole criterion. Wikipedia:Notability is not policy or a guideline. Without any other reason than it is not "sufficiently notable", I cannot support deletion. Agent 86 06:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Agent 86. --Coredesat 10:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Fanboys film appears to be notable based on the research some voters did, so it only makes sense to keep the film's director listed as well. - Mgm|(talk) 11:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per my change of mind on the Fanboys article. - Mgm|(talk) 07:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is an important criteria, and lack of it is sufficient for deletion, if it's clearly not there. However that is not the case here. Peter is notable for the body of cinematographic work, and for Angels 2200. Not mergable to individual films or to the comic without significant and needless duplication of information, so article should stand alone. Keep++Lar: t/c 13:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable filmmaker and artist. TheRealFennShysa 15:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A couple of short films and webcomics. Most of the article is synopses of the films, two of which are themselves not notable enough for articles. —Centrx→talk 20:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: An assertion of "not notable" is insufficient grounds for deletion. Dread Lord CyberSkull✎☠ 22:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: An bare assertion, by itself, is not, I agree. But if the assertion is supported with evidence of failure to find notability in the expected places, and thus there is good reason to believe the subject is in fact not notable, that is sufficient cause to remove the article. It is my view that Peter Haynes is notable, for several reasons, in several areas, as I outlied above, but notability IS a valid and important thing to measure articles with, IMHO. ++Lar: t/c 17:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable New Zealand filmmaker. MikeWazowski 04:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, lack of reliable sources. The only remotely related information from a reputable third-party source that I can find at my library is a 1993 story involving a fire near Mark Hamill's Malibu home that quotes a security guard named Peter Haynes. Note that "Wikipedia:Verifiability [is] non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus. ... Articles should rely on credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. ... If an article topic has no reputable, reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic." -- Dragonfiend 15:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - considering that Peter Haynes is a New Zealand filmmaker and his information is easily accessible on the net, you should try your search again. He's listed at NZshortfilm.com (a website specifically about New Zealand filmmakers), a recent article about a New Zealand film festival, a comics news site, and on top of all that, Peter Jackson himself selected Haynes' film Jungle Fever as a wildcard selection in last year's New Zealand 48 Hour Filmmaking Competition. The article may need some re-writing, but the subject is clearly notable. TheRealFennShysa 16:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Which of those sources do you consider to be "credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"? I'm not familiar with splurd.com -- does it have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? It seems to bill itself as "Proof that any retard with a computer can make a webcomic," [1], which doesn't sound like the most reliable source to me, unless we've extended our official verifiablity policy to include "any retard with a computer." -- Dragonfiend 16:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Interestingly enough, I don't find the text "any retard with a computer" anywhere on that link you provided. Regardless, focus on the "weaker" reference if you want, but the NZ Short film links are the key - it's a major film competition in that county, done with the co-operation of Peter Jackson. I'd say that easily counts as credible. TheRealFennShysa 16:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Do you see that little box on the left of the splurd site? It apparently loads a random phrase above the "click to read Splurd's comics," one of which is "Proof that any retard with a computer can make a webcomic." Hit "refresh" a few times, and you'll see it. As far as the New Zealand Short film contest goes, they seem to list around 4000 "filmmakers" [2]. Are you suggesting we should have articles on all of these people? I don't think so. What I'm looking for (and what Wikipedia requires) are "credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy," such as major newspapers, magazines, etc. Not film contest web sites with hundreds or thousands of contestants, or amateur webcomics bloggers. If the security guard near Mark Hammill's house is getting more press than this filmmaker, then we probably shouldn't have an article on this filmmaker. -- Dragonfiend 02:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All 4000 entrants? Probably not. Repeat finalist in film contests? That's rather a different bar though. Association with notable people confers (a small dollop) of their notability. Peter Jackson is mega-mega-notable, and his association with Peter Haynes confers (a small dollop) of notability on Peter Haynes. Coupled with the other items cited, enough, in my view, although perhaps not yours. ++Lar: t/c 05:02, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Which "other items cited"? Are any of these "items cited" in "credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"? -- Dragonfiend 05:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - More information is required, the article could assert more notability, but at present I don't think that it does. Benjaminstewart05 20:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KeepComment: Just simply believing the world is flat doesn't make it true. Provide evidence of lack of notability. Dread Lord CyberSkull✎☠ 08:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Second vote by individual transmuted into a comment — you can only vote once.
Note: Cyberskull, this is your second "Keep" not-a-vote of this discussion. Also, Cyberskull seems to misunderstand the "Burden of evidence" section of our official Wikipedia:Verifiability policy: "The burden of evidence lies with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain. Editors should therefore provide references. If an article topic has no reputable, reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic. " -- Dragonfiend 13:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' Non notable bio. --Kunzite 23:03, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since a filmmaker who has made short films of sufficient quality to receive national attention (and a nod from Peter Jackson) counts as notable. I would say the article ought to provide more references for said attention, such as by using the links supplied above. That Wiki should have an article on this person has been argued sufficiently in my view. Xuanwu 21:40, 25 June 2006 (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.