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 keep. KTC (talk) 00:16, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Stokes[edit]

Francis Stokes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

WP:GNG - Claim to fame appears to be 6 or 7 youtube videos. Was put up for AfD 6 years ago with the result Merge & Delete PeterWesco (talk) 05:45, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (previous vote delete) I don't find reliable sources discussing him to meet GNG. Although I am not completely conviced by how the sources brought by Schmidt discuss the subject, they are enough to meet the general notability guideline. I'd like to see more dedicated coverage, but those available are good enough to warrant an article. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 18:43, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per prior AfD. I'm admittedly unfamiliar with all the workings of AfD, but if there was a previous discussion whose result was Merge & Delete, is another AfD really needed?... Valrith (talk) 13:17, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

comment it has sat for 6 years and at the time his youtube videos were just released. I think in the passage of 6 years delete is going to be the best option as he has done nothing...

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:59, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Keep and encourage improvements under WP:NRVE. A sad lack of effort when improvements are possible is less a reason to delete, than it is to let something be improved over time and through regular editing. WP:NRVE tells us notablity is based upon sources being available, and not upon their being used. The AFD in 2006 was appropriate enough as the many now-available sources did not exist at that time and six years ago the article was (then) TOO SOON. The redirect was undone by User:IronGargoyle in 2007 with the correct summary that more had become available since that 2006 AFD... but sadly, no one used the newer sources to actually expand and source the article. In looking I did find pre-2006 coverage that might have been used back then,but far more post-2006 significant coverage in such as CNN Money Stern DSL-Team Victoria Advocate Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, USA Today andmore behind paywalls in Orlando Sentinel Toronto Star Hartford Courant Chicago Tribune Bucks County Courier Times The Press of Atlantic City HAD the article been majorly improved after the redirect was undone instead of sitting forgotten, we might not be at AFD today. I think we can look to coverage from before 2006 and newer sources stretching through at least 2008, and remember that notability is not temporary. We do not expect anyone that had enough coverage in the past to stay in the headlines. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:56, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

comment Somewhat agree, but the new sources are mainly focused on the work product and not the creator. Should consolidating the other stub(like) articles into this article be the focus? Meaning Harold Buttleman, Daredevil Stuntman and God, Inc. being combine into this existing article, combining the sources, and redirecting. Essentially, from a Wikipedia perspective, are 3 thin articles better than an all encompassing article that focuses on the artist and the projects? PeterWesco (talk) 21:05, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If a filmmaker's works are the recipient of enough coverage to themselves be found notable, as are Harold Buttleman, Daredevil Stuntman and God, Inc., then we have the filmmaker meeting WP:CREATIVE. The Stern (magazine) article (for one), speaks toward his work but also gives us plenty of background on the man himself to support expansion of a bio section in the article. It was the first cite I included in my recent work there. We can always discuss a merge and redirect of the project articles into the one on the filmmaker... but that does not require deletion of the article being discussed here. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:00, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per MichaelQSchmidt. IronGargoyle (talk) 08:29, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP I did the AfD and have been swayed. As stated above, my desire would be to make this a great article. In the past 5 years there has not been much (if any) activity and I think a great Francis Stokes article with God Inc and Harold Buttleman, Daredevil Stuntman merged would be better than 3 sparse articles. This is more of a personal choice against disjointed Wikipedia:Content forking or stubs. While everyone is here, can we have a discussion on the merging and hammer something out? PeterWesco (talk) 21:13, 31 December 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.