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 delete. Stifle (talk) 19:44, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Drake (director) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

• Delete The subject has made one film that has not yet been released and the article really does not establish notability Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} ^(Whisper...) 14:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect to Animals (film). I could live with a redirect but I'm hesitant because the film itself is of questionable notability. (It's a low-budget independent film by a first-time director and it's still in the principal photography stage.) I wish all the best to the film and to Mr. Drake himself but he just doesn't pass the threshold of WP:BIO. There's one short interview in a reliable source but it contains basically zero in-depth information. In fact two thirds of the interview are about his plans if he wins a prize that we now know he did not win. The biography was written by someone who knows him personally (see User talk:WoodyChaucer) and supported by two other fresh accounts JamesHollandson (talk · contribs) and Leosinger (talk · contribs) who were adamant that their friend was notable enough to erase this other Edward Drake from memory. Interestingly, it has been argued that the film is notable because it's generating a lot of publicity but I'm not too happy with Wikipedia being used for self-promotion. If all goes well, Drake's movie will come out within the next year and if it's even moderately successful we will get plenty of in-depth coverage about him but we're not supposed to jump the gun. Pichpich (talk) 15:35, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable, some small coverage for WP:ONEEVENT. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:19, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as just barely notable enough and we do not expect a new fimmaker to have the coverage as might Spielberg or Lucas. Since this young filmmaker is involved in more than one project, it's not quite a WP:BLP1E. That he and his most recent project ARE receiving coverage,[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8] the concern for ONEEVENT does not quite apply, as it is expected that filmmakers receive coverage for their latest projects, just as has this fellow. With just enough coverage, we have WP:GNG and WP:FILMMAKER being met. I have already suggested elsewhere[9] that the film Animals (film) should be redirected to the filmmaker for the time being, and we can allow this new article to grow and be further improved over time and with regular editing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:32, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• A few quick points. First, there is absolutely no question that Drake fails WP:FILMMAKER and by a comfortable margin. Which of the five criteria do you think he meets? You say that he has been involved in "more than one project" but this is misleading. He is currently shooting a feature film, that's true. The other project is a 90 second amateur film that was entered into an amateur film contest which he did not win. Finally, you seem to call for lowering the notability bar for young filmmakers on the grounds that they're not Spielberg or Lucas. The creator of the article likewise asked me to "Give the kid a break". The bar is set at the same level for everyone: multiple instances of coverage of Drake himself (not his film, not the actor in his film, not the contest he entered) in reliable sources. I don't see that right now. Pichpich (talk) 13:02, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• When I read the applicable guideline stating ""The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work... that has been the subject of... multiple independent periodical articles or reviews," and look at the numerous sources speaking about this person and or his work, I cannot conclude that this guideline is failed. We have two intrically related new articles brought to AFD... the filmmaker and his film. Both have coverage.[10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17] In granting that the film is getting coverage, it is not yet released and so fails WP:NFF. BUT in looking for alternatives to outright deletion, I see how policy instructs how a covered topic might still be discussed even when not yet meriting a separate article... and that led me to this AFD on the filmmaker. I am not calling for a lowering of the bar... only that it not be raised beyond its intent. I am not saying "give the kid a break"... no exceptions asked and none expected. What I am saying is we have a filmmaker who just bumps over the bar for notability and that it serves the project and its readers that this article remain and be further improved through regular editing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:16, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I think this is a completely unreasonable stretch of all the parameters of WP:FILMMAKER. For starters, the phrase "has created" implies that the work in question is completed but the feature film has not even finished principal photography. "Well-known work" implies that, you know, people actually know about it. But it's interesting that you chose to drop the word "significant" in that sentence. For the record, let me point out again that the works of Edward Drake are a one-minute video used to audition for a contest and a low-budget independent film currently shooting. That is miles away from the spirit of criterion 3 of WP:FILMMAKER. You also casually list 8 links above but I'd like to point out that links 15 and 17 are the same and are not a reliable source, link 16 is not independent of its subject, link 14 has zero information and is basically a blog, links 10 and 12 have nothing to do with Animals (film) and link 11 only makes a passing mention of Drake. Pichpich (talk) 18:45, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Meets notability, also looks like this page can get a lot bigger if the AFD for his animal move gets merge to this page. [Ray-Rays 02:01, 8 March 2012 (UTC) Contact ]
• Delete I almost always follow the expert views of MQS in this subject. This time I think he has it wrong; the film is not yet notable, and neither is he. Perhaps he will be. I agree with Pichpich & others that this is really too far a stretch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 02:15, 8 March 2012‎

• Comment/Request While I can accept that this article may yet be deleted, I do believe it has the potential to be improved to better serve the project. IF it is deleted as a result of this discussion, and IF it is not returned to its author, I request that it be be moved to User:MichaelQSchmidt/workspace/Edward Drake (filmmaker) so that I may work on it and improve it over time and through regular editing as sources come forward when this filmmaker and his film receive more coverage upon his film's release. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:26, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy per above request. Cavarrone (talk) 12:01, 10 March 2012 (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.