Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Hunter (film director)

Reply The one source is imdb, which is just a listing of all films made. See

talk) 17:04, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I have read the guidelines for film notability, and again that falls within the category of personal taste and opinion. Mr. Hunter's films were released, distributed, and of public interest. And the fact that he made those films at such a young age further argues my case for inclusion. Jwh3 (talk —Preceding undated comment was added at 17:14, 20 December 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Comment: The Amazon sources state This product is manufactured on demand using DVD-R recordable media.. CreateSpace is also a self-publishing portal. It would appear that anybody can self-publish through these venues. Chasingsol (talk) 17:25, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ReplyThis product is manufactured on demand using DVD-R recordable media.

So what? Does that mean James Hunter doesn't exist??

"CreateSpace is also a self-publishing portal. It would appear that anybody can self-publish through these venues."

Yes but not anybody has the resume or filmography of James Hunter. Again, these are opinions based on taste and preference, and your remarks are prejudicial in the least. Jwh3 (talk20 December 2008 (UTC)

• Delete not notable Clubmarx (talk) 17:47, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply "not notable"

Define "notable" please. Jwh3 (talk20 December 2008 (UTC)

• Additional comment: Wikipedia notability is described here.. Also, please try to be
  WP:CIVIL. Chasingsol (talk) 19:36, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete: Doesn't show notability per
  WP:BIO. Schuym1 (talk) 19:50, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Clubmarx (talk) 19:52, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Additional comment: This also appears to be
  WP:CONFLICT. User:Jwh3 appears to be the subject of the article itself, per their user page. I have also reinstated the Afd after it was removed from the page here. Chasingsol (talk) 20:00, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the
  talk) 00:02, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete No assertion of notability per
  WP:CoI Xenocide^{Talk|Contributions} 02:16, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete No evidence of meeting the
  WP:COI doesn't help either. Cheers, CP 04:36, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete: I would delete for the present because of lack of independent references and the strength of the moves and roles therein. However, this may change in the future. Good luck. Royalhistorian (talk) 05:40, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete--No one is denying that Mr. Hunter is a film director, or that Amazon sells his stuff on demand. However, the WP community does deny that sites like YouTube.com offer independent verification of notability. Moreover, the COI issue is a bit too self-evident here; not that it takes away from possible notability, but it does raise questions about the believability of some of the statements. Then again, a thorough edit has removed much of the unverifiable and trivial content. What's left is not necessarily questionable, but it's also not notable. Hundreds if not thousands of people have 16mm equipment and have shot movies. Thousands if not tens of thousands have gone to LA to make it big and worked as waiters. I could go on. Subject, until proven otherwise (and I know one WP editor is on the case, perhaps he'll turn up something I (or the original author!) couldn't), is not notable; article should be deleted. Drmies (talk) 16:13, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless
  reliable sources can be found which establish the subject's notability and verify the facts in the article. No prejudice against recreation if such sources subsequently become available. Wiw8 (talk) 16:35, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Jwh3 (talk 22 December 2008

• Delete but do not salt I've made a good faith effort to search for RS coverage of this James Hunter, but end up finding the musician, a colonial painter, high school athletes, a guy going to prison... When a guy doing time for writing bad checks comes up higher than you in a Google News search, you know you've got a PR problem. The author's questionable behavior is excusable per his newness to Wikipedia--frankly, the vehemence with which this article has been identified as not meriting inclusion may have been a little on the
  verifiability, and IMDb doesn't cut it. Jclemens (talk) 18:02, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • In response to the other comments below, let's not pile on here. Yes, this should be deleted as it stands now. But the author has not expressed an intention to recreate this article (that I've seen), nor has this article been created multiple times previously. If it's recreated in substantially the same form, it's already going to be subject to a G4 speedy deletion. Salting the title is not merited by the interactions I've seen here--salting should be more about protecting the encyclopedia and/or targets of BLP violations from egregious issues, not for "sticking it to" new editors who try to contribute something that's not notable and react with misguided but understandable vehemence when "their" article goes bye-bye. Jclemens (talk) 18:01, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ReplyEverything you've just said is not very helpful at all. Except this: "the vehemence with which this article has been identified as not meriting inclusion may have been a little on the

Omarcheeseboro started this out of a personal bias against Mr. Hunter. You're not gonna find much for our James Hunter on Google, since he was making films before the internet went online. Jwh3 (talk

22 December 2008

• • • So the only helpful thing he said was the one thing in your defense? Quite the one-sided view on things. Anyway, no one said this James Hunter writes bad checks. Google is a fine search engine and a pretty good indicator to one's notability. IMDB is not considered an indicator for notability and since most of the info is user added, it's also not always reliable. Claiming
      assumption of bad faith. Lastly, your argument that this James Hunter lacks google hits because his films were made before the dawn of internet, is quite frankly laughable. I guess Ludwig van Beethoven, who wrote all his music before the internet, is just a fluke with over 4 million hits then.--Atlan (talk) 19:26, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• Delete. No evidence this person has been the subject of substantial coverage by multiple, reliable, third-party published sources. — Satori Son 19:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete Article does not show a shred of notability. ukexpat (talk) 19:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply"Google is a fine search engine and a pretty good indicator to one's notability." Google is a joke. Example:

Perfect 10 v. Google, Inc.

So what if Mr. Hunter doesn't have a publicist. That doesn't make his work any less real. "Lastly, your argument that this James Hunter lacks google hits" Is that your only argument? Google hits? LOL

And this:

www.amazon.com/dp/B001HZY1SO/

www.indieflix.com/Films/RobinHoodPrinceofSherwood

www.amazon.com/dp/B001HZY1T8/

www.indieflix.com/Films/TheRiverBridge

Not fancy enough for you? Ok here we go with the film festivals. YAWN:

ROBIN HOOD:

George Lindsey UNA Film Festival Tracking ID: 1231 Entry date: November 08, 2006

Sidewalk Moving Picture Festival Tracking ID: 06-0003 Entry date: March 17, 2006

Hollywood Film Festival(r) Tracking ID: 4440 Entry date: March 13, 2006

RIVER BRIDGE:

George Lindsey UNA Film Festival Tracking ID: 1230 Entry date: November 08, 2006

Sidewalk Moving Picture Festival Tracking ID: 06-0004 Entry date: March 17, 2006

Westwood International Film Festival Tracking ID: 06-1014 Entry date: February 08, 2006

Hollywood Film Festival(r) Tracking ID: 4186 Entry date: January 01, 2006

Atlanta Film Festival Tracking ID: 3932 Entry date: January 01, 2006

Los Angeles Film Festival Tracking ID: 8796 Entry date: January 01, 2006

VERIFIED. Jwh3 (talk 22 December 2008 —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:45, 22 December 2008 (UTC).[reply]

• You fail to debunk any of the opposing arguments. Entering your films at a film festival does not make one notable. Furthermore, this is about notability, not whether James Hunter and his films exist. Your rather hostile defense of this article is not doing you any favors, by the way.--Atlan (talk) 19:58, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment: Jwh3 has now been blocked for 1 week by Smashville for disruptive editing/personal attacks. – ukexpat (talk) 20:22, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete vain vanity in vain. Obviously autobiographical. JuJube (talk) 21:07, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete obviously. I have credits on IMDB and there's no Wikipedia page on me, as there obviously shouldn't be. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 02:48, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Any chance an admin can
  snowball close/delete this one? – ukexpat (talk) 03:10, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment: Respectfully request this one be blocked from re-creation for the time being because of statement here from now banned user. Chasingsol (talk) 03:32, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with the
    salt. --Clubmarx (talk) 05:05, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment - He's blocked for a week, not banned, but the salt is probably a good idea. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 14:39, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Except that "Administrators should not use creation protection as a pre-emptive measure, but only in response to actual events."[1] Let's wait and see what actually happens. — Satori Son 15:16, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete per nom, with a tinge of vainglorious COI Theserialcomma (talk) 04:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Author is subject of article, and protect from recreation, per all the hilarity posted above. Ryan4314 (talk) 10:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per not a single, solitary reliable source to establish notability (or anything else). I don't undey therstand why these can't be speedy.
  talk) 20:35, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I'm amazed at the low level of intelligence with which most of you are exhibiting. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this article. It states absolute fact and is backed up by the most reputable movie database in the entire world. And those of you who are crying "vanity" are only envious. I have yet to see any real reason from any of you as to why this article should be deleted other than you just don't like it. I can name hundreds of articles like that but I dont need to delete them. Its very simple, if you dont like James Hunter dont look at his page. Move on. And to those of you who are asking Wiki to block recreation, you deserve a high position in either the Bush Administration or the Nazi party. This is ridiculous. Jwh3 (talk23 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.190.7.9 (talk)

• • Comment: See Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Jwh3#User:Jwh3

*cmt Please don't call anyone stupid here again. As for you, you apparently continue to fail to read the relevant policies on sourcing, notability, etc... Here they are for your reading pleasure.

talk) 22:51, 23 December 2008 (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.