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. (WP:NPASR). (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:14, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

James Suttles[edit]

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

Only the BoldLife source is a reliable, independent source that is actually about the topic of the article. Others are not reliable, not independent, or contain merely a passing mention of the article's topic (or less). Because we need multiple reliable, independent sources about the topic, notability has not been established.

Additional side-notes:

Article was moved from AfC by its creator without actually being accepted
Article creator's username contains "film", and the article topic is a filmmaker TheCascadian 01:49, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm relatively new to Wikipedia and not sure how this works but I will add my reasons for including this article:

He is the Director of Photography on an Academy Award Nominated film. A role that is key to the films success.
The Nomination was one of the most controversial nominations in recent history for the academy awards.
His film "Red Dirt Rising" had one of the largest independent film premiere ever with over 4000 people attending.

As for responding to the additional side-notes:

I was searching online about how to get the article published and a wikipedia article explained all I had to do was move it with detailed instructions. I'm green at this and to be honest the system is quite difficult to understand.
As for my name including "film". I just want to be able to create articles about films that I enjoy. I'm confused as to why that would be an issue as film is where my interest is in contributing to wikipedia. I would also think that someone who is an avid follower of films would be a better source of info that someone interested in "Science" or "Astronomy" writing articles about "films". • JLFilm(talk)— Preceding unsigned comment added by JLFilm (talk • contribs) 14:54, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JLFilm,

If the nomination was indeed very controversial, it should not be difficult to find independent, reliable, third-party sources that sufficiently cover the topic. If more of those are found then the page can be included. See WP:GNG for more info.

I would also like to apologize about the confusion involved in the AfC process. Currently come changes are being discussed, but the intent is for article writers (like yourself) to wait for a review from a reviewing editor who will either accept the article and move it to the mainspace or reject the article and tell the article writer what changes need to be made. This is done to help new editors not have their pages deleted from the mainspace. Unfortunately, AfC usually gets very clogged and backlogged, so you probably were waiting awhile.

Lastly, I apologize for implying things about your username. I assumed that your username was the name of a company affiliated in some way with the article topic.

TheCascadian 19:39, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TheCascadian,

I'll add more links to the article relating to the controversy now. I am assuming that is the best method as opposed to adding them here?

No offense taken, as I was just confused as to the issue with my name but your explanation makes complete sense. What I am beginning to understand is that there is not the typical admin roles and restrictions that you typically see with website and that everyone can edit and contribute equally but an emphasis is put on follow the proper procedure. That's great and such a community oriented approach. I'll be sure to research more before jumping the gun again. Thanks. JLFilm (talk) 20:27, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can go ahead and add them if you like. Just make sure that if they are being used to establish notability they must be independent (no affiliation), reliable (no blogs, etc), and actually cover the topic of the article (no passing mentions, at least a decently sized paragraph about the topic.

There are admins here, but it is more that they are given additional "janitorial" privileges to block/ban users and delete pages, etc.

Lastly, when you are commenting on talk pages, it is standard to use colons to indicate who is saying what. So for example if you are the first one to comment, you use no colons. The next person who comments below them puts one colon before what they write. The next person two, etc. It just makes the formatting a lot nicer and easier to follow. (so since I am using three colons on this one, you use four on the next). Welcome to Wikipedia, btw. :) TheCascadian 00:11, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:19, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 02:54, 18 May 2014 (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.