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 no consensus. I would note that bringing an article to AFD because of a disagreement over whether or not to redirect it is not generally appropriate. Discussions like this should go on the talk page. Stifle (talk) 17:35, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Alexander[edit]

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

Recently replaced with a redirect, but that has been contested. See Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#Chris_Alexander Accordingly, it's here at AfD. Discuss. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:26, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My views on its deletion are simple. The lack of notability. I stated on a few pages that while I know that Fangoria is an iconic publication, I just don't think the guy who is editing it is. Taking over the editorial duties of an established magazine doesn't really make the editor notable unless he's goes beyond just being an editor or is influential in the genre. I came across a few articles about him but these are from mostly horror related blogs or websites that talk about the genre as a whole. These type of blogs/sites also talk to independent horror film makers, make-up artists, and countless other people who are into the genre but don't have a whole lot of notability in the process. His page basically reads as a resume more so than anything and there really isn't a whole lot that can be written about him outside of him editing Fangoria and reviewing movies for a free newspaper. While he had composed music in the past and made a film, how does this separate him from the countless others that make films or compose music in today's Internet age. Does every person who makes a low budget film deserve a wiki page? If so then Wikipedia would be 3 times a large as it is. Its not so much as making a film or composing music its about them being notable enough. As it stands these are just hobbies more so than anything. I always suspected that either he or one of his friends created the page in the first place, and after the page was redirected sure enough apparently Chris himself showed up to contest it here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#Chris_Alexander

To top it off he accused me of being someone else and that I troll him which is hardly the truth. I never even met this guy in personGiantdevilfish (talk) 15:41, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Alexander here: strongly you investigate giantdevilfish's "nobility". I assure you this person is exactly who I cite him being. And again, I urge your team to properly investigate me with a casual google search that will reveal thousands of features penned about my work in and around the horror film genre as both writer, filmmaker and musician. Do you not find it interesting that giantdevilfish only uses his time at wiki to discuss King Kong and other giant monster film culture and I am the sole exception. Again. This person's name is Michael Bianco. He goes under the name DevilFish69 on YouTube, Giant Pacific Octopus on a classic horror forum and countless other handles elsewhere. He always hides behind avatars. And because he fancies he knew me in high school, apparently spends a great deal of time thinking about me. Again, I stress, I'm easy to investigate. Giantdevilfish should in turn be investigated as should WIKI's screening process. If unbalanced internet trolls with axes to grind are running rampant at WIKI, I as the EIC of a major print and web publication seriously question the integrity of this very site.

If there are thousands of features penned about your work then use them as citations. The thing with the Wikipedia is that its primarily about discussion. I actually discussed if the page was warranted with other editors and not once did I put up the deletion template. That was an editor named Andy Dingley. I actually used a redirect to the Fangoria page. I think perhaps a small section devoted to you (if this is Chris Alexander) could be on the Fangoria page rather than an entire article. However you can use various citations to beef up your page and make it more notable. In fact if you don't know how to put up the citations simply list them here (the URL's) or on my talk page and I'll add them to the page for you.Giantdevilfish (talk) 19:25, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Chris, I would like to warn you about making statements that accuse other editors of having a bias against you. The problem with this is that unless you can prove this beyond a reasonable doubt, you should absolutely refrain from saying that someone has an agenda against you and that this is the only reason your article is up for deletion. If you want to prove your notability, you must do so by showing coverage in reliable sources. Just telling us to do a Google search is not enough, as in most cases about 95% of any given Google search is absolutely unusable as far as proving notability goes. It doesn't mean that the remaining 5% might not be enough to show notability, but the fact is that WP:GHITS isn't a rationale that will keep an article. In the end, if you have enough notability to pass WP:BIO, then it'll come about. If not, then the article will be deleted. Accusing an editor that's been here for about 6 years of being a troll is not a good way to argue for your article to be kept. Rather than him having an agenda, he could be making a truly good faith deletion nomination. I'll see what I can find, but attacking the credibility of a Wikipedia editor is not a good way to set the stage for an AfD. It just makes incoming editors tense up and be less likely to want to help you. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:08, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've gone through and found where there's just enough coverage for his Blood of Irina film to where I'd say Alexander merits his own page. I wouldn't say that there were thousands of sources, though. Many of the hits were to "junk" or basic database type articles that confirm Alexander's existence but are completely unusable as far as notability or sourcing goes. Of the remainder, many were blog sites that just can't be used to show notability either per WP:BLOG. The problem with blogs is that even though some are well thought of within their community, it's very very difficult to prove that the blogger is someone that's so notable, so much of an authority that their blog would be the rare exception. Of the rest, many were WP:PRIMARY, meaning that they were things that were released by Alexander, Fangoria, or one of the outlets that he has worked with or been associated with. However I still found enough to show that he passes notability guidelines. If his notability were only for achieving the status of EIC of Fangoria I'd recommend a redirect, but there's just enough here to warrant a keep. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:55, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 00:22, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I'm still uncertain about the basic notability of this particular person — but what I do have to say here is that he is absolutely not more notable than the politician of the same name, such that he should get plain title while the politician has to be disambiguated. If this article is kept, one of two things must happen here: either he gets moved to a disambiguated title and the plain Chris Alexander becomes a disambiguation page, or he gets moved a disambiguated title and the politician takes over the plain one. Bearcat (talk) 19:31, 22 July 2013 (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.