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.
Few sources used for citations, and most are on a single subject. I could not find news coverage in WP:RS either. RobP (talk) 23:47, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It appears that there is significant COI as well, as the main contributor Moniqueboucher works for Jones [1]. If we are going to keep it, it definitely needs a TNT.Theredproject (talk) 20:21, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Very Weak Keep It appears that under a bare-bones minimum view of 'has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times.' As an Oscar is a significant reward, and two can can be construed as the minimum of several, this is literally the bottom of the barrel for notability in the film industry. Definately needs work to read less like a promotional piece.Bahb the Illuminated (talk) 23:23, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I did a little cleanup, but can't find much on his work at National Geographic - I'm basing this vote on the two films nominated for Academy awards. The fact that they were both the same year - a rarity - puts this over the top for me. TimTempleton(talk)(cont)18:50, 4 May 2018 (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.