Page deleted without real debate DanielFarad (talk) 01:13, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[]
The page was deleted after a 2 against 1 vote debate over notability and I believe the people involved were not familiar with the video production field.
The guy is a well established video director and is recognized worldwide, having worked with the biggest bands and artists.
Please find here a list of references about Awards and nominations, interviews and news:
Awards and Nominations
Skrillex and Wiwek - Killa ft. Elliphant (Still In The Cage)
Berlin Music Video Awards 2016; Won for "Best Editor" [1]
Juno awards 2017; Nomination for "Video of the year" [2]
Zedd - Clarity
MTV Video Music Awards 2013; Nomination for "Artist to Watch" [3]
Deftones - You've Seen the Butcher
Antville Music Video Awards 2010; Nomination for "Best performance video" [4]
The New cities - Dead End, Countdown
Much music awards 2009; Nomination for "Post-Production of the Year" [5]
Imagine Dragons - I bet my life
Camerimage 2015; Nomination for "Best Music Video" [6],[7]
While this is an interesting question, it has nothing at all to do with whether the AfD was correctly decided. Jclemens (talk) 06:50, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[]
When did Smith said that the answer had something to do with the DRV?Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 11:09, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[]
Can we get a temp undelete to evaluate the difference between the sources in the article at the time of discussion and those presented above? Thanks, Jclemens (talk) 06:50, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[]
Article temp undeleted. ATraintalk 12:13, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[]
Thanks for your support @Jclemens:. I am definitely not a frequent contributor but I feel like there's much more energy put in trying to find one good reason to delete the page instead of finding one to keep it. I don't see why there's even a debate over this. 10 minutes on Google should do it... Here are other references I found on Alternative Press[1], Shots[2], IndieWire[3], Short of the Week[4], Pitchfork[5], Billboard[6], i-D[7].
Relist to consider an argument under WP:NMUSIC 8 for being nominated for a Juno. That wasn't discussed at the AfD. Bearcat made a de factoWP:DEL7 argument, which arguably isn't true anymore because of the sourcing provided above. A new AfD should be willing to consider whether or not the subject meets the subject specific guidelines, and whether that presumption of notability is enough to merit inclusion. I would strongly oppose overturning, because three established good faith editors reviewed the work, and agreed on deletion. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:37, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[]
@DanielFarad: could you please answer my question, asked above? Do you have any relationship with the subject of this article? -- RoySmith(talk) 14:21, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[]
RoySmith I really think that question is tacky and shouldn't need to be answered by any editor. Asking it is inherently ABF, isn't it? If you've got evidence, then by all means bring it up in a different noticeboard--my understanding is that DRV is for content issues, not user problems. Jclemens (talk) 22:37, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[]
I think it's a perfectly legitimate question. And, actually, it's WP:AGF. I'm assuming that as somebody with limited experience on wikipedia, they may not be aware of WP:COI and the importance of disclosing any conflicts. If any such conflicts exist, then I'm helping them to be in compliance with our policies. If no such conflict exists, then all they need do is say so. I would only be assuming bad faith if I assumed that they were aware of the requirement and were intentionally failing to disclose. But I'm not assuming that at all. -- RoySmith(talk) 23:09, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[]
RoySmith I don't. I come from the same area so I've been hearing about the guy quite a bit. I did create the page in the first place and although it might have suffered from notability at the time, I don't think this is the case anymore.DanielFarad (talk) 16:49, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[]
On the numbers this debate is pointing at "no consensus to overturn", which gives the closer the choice between "endorse by default" and "relist". Bearcat's !vote in the AfD is suggestive of borderline notability and the DRV has come up with some new sources... so "relist" would be the preferable outcome here I think.—S MarshallT/C 16:12, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Elisa Jordana – Decision endorsed. Near-universal agreement that this was a thoughtful close. ATraintalk 12:05, 5 October 2017 (UTC) – ATraintalk 12:05, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Robman94's !vote seemed a pretty good argument for retention. That said, the article appears to have serious problems (OWN issues making it a hagiography with exaggerated and/or false claims). Dedicated editors can cause a lot of problems at a borderline biography. Hobit (talk) 10:42, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[]
Endorse close - SoWhy clearly explained their rationale in their closing statement, and indeed it is apparent that there was roughly even disagreement as to the acceptability of the various sources provided, and equally even disagreement as to whether these sources established notability. "No consensus" was the correct call. On a purely procedural note, it doesn't appear that the requester of the review attempted to discuss with the closer at all before bringing this here. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:56, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[]
Endorse per Ivanvector. I see no other way someone could have closed this, and SoWhy explained the rationale thoroughly. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:37, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[]
Endorse - an excellent closing rationale to a difficult AfD, nice work Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 15:13, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[]
Endorse as a correct reading of the discussion. Consider starting a merge/redirect discussion... Jclemens (talk) 06:42, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[]