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. Michig (talk) 07:59, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Israel Luna[edit]

Israel Luna (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)

Delete, lacks sources separate from the subject to show notability, also appears to be a copy and paste reproduction of previously deleted material. Strongly considered csd but is claiming notability. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 06:40, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep, although the subject has not received significant coverage from multiple non-primary reliable sources; although the subject has been received multiple mentions in multiple non-primary reliable sources, the sum of those mentions would not equal significant coverage IMHO. That being said, the subject is notable per criteria #4 of WP:FILMMAKER, therefore the article should not be deleted.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:08, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep but rewrite. (Changing to Keep, see my comment below.) The subject has directed a couple of (marginally) notable films and probably does meet the criteria for an article. However, the article needs a complete rewrite. It was obviously copy-pasted from somewhere else (probably a Wiki mirror based on the footnote style), and it contains no independent sourcing and way too much puffery ("screening all across the country to rave reviews", "his biggest success to date creating a media storm with controversy and positive buzz", etc.). --MelanieN (talk) 19:23, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• weak keep and rewrite. His works have received coverage enough for him to meet WP:ENT#4.[1][2] Needs work, but such appears do-able. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 10:01, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment OK, given the above comments, I just worked over the article, adding some independent references and trimming some of the puffery. --MelanieN (talk) 15:37, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for performing some of the do-able improvements. I have upped from "weak" to "keep" Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:45, 19 March 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.