Deletion of Shaun Phillips (director)

Comment: I do not think the existance of the works is in question, but rather their notability per , and his per . |Films need to have coverage and analysis in reliable sources. |Filmmakers require coverage in reliable sources. If properly |reliable sources speak toward he and his works, such would go far toward showing the asserted notability
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NF||WP:N||WP:NF||WP:CREATIVE||WP:RS)

Comment: Wikipedia:Vanispamcruftisement|Vanispamcruftisement with sourcing designed to misleed. Tries hard to establish notability by |association with name dropping and |puffing others achievements. Major |bombardment (especially in earlier versions) to disguise a lack of notability. Sourcing is questionable at best. Sources that don't verify claims, verifying things that Phillips had nothing to do with, verifying only a minor part of claims (and parts unrelated to Phillips), primary sources, press releases. Other than one review of his documentary there is nothing here. Clear and unambiguos promotion
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:NOTINHERITED||WP:PUFF||WP:BOMBARD)

Comment: Unfortunately, most of what Bh1967 mentions as reliable sources do not fit the Wikipedia standard. As I said, Film Threat is a RS. NewFilmMakers.com, however, is basically a self-promotion and distribution site for filmmakers, and thus is not independent. PressBox is just a site for uploading press releases, and the KSLX report just quotes from one of those press release sites. Other citations from RS like USA Today do not mention Phillips. I think we can grant that Phillips did direct what the article says he directed, but that is not the issue: the question is whether that makes him notable. Brief mentions that a documentary short has played here and there does not constitute "significant coverage" per . Even the "much publicized free internet viewing" was publicized only through self-produced press-releases, not independent coverage. Even if he has worked with famous people, notability is not necessarily inherited. Bh1967 has valiantly tried to add more and more sources, but the fact not one of them is a detailed article on Phillips himself is telling
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: I suggest you calm down a bit. As I said on my talk page, I am willing to withdraw this AfD if you find the necessary sources. And I have written a lot explaining Wikipedia policy to you. First, it is the business of Wikipedia editors to determine whether a festival is notable or not. We do it all the time when someone tries to create a page on that festival. And even if it is considered notable enough to have a Wikipedia page, that does not mean that every single film shown there or given some award deserves to have a Wikipedia page.  only specifies major awards in the field. Please remember that the question of whether Phillips directed some films is not the issue here: it is the question of whether he is notable. Just showing at some lesser known film festivals is not enough (there are plenty of festivals that will play a film if you pay them to). If some national critic picks up the film at a festival and writes about it or Phillips that's great--you can cite that--but then it is the detailed article, not the festival page, that is more important. Finally, your Kennedy example does not work. There are plenty of media that can be cited. If you can't find the video, use another media. Wikipedia does not depend on net sources, so you can cite any reliable source in print if you can find it in the library. But the copyright rules are strict. If the video you want to link to is not cleared for copyright, then it is just bad luck. You can't use it--no exceptions. But if you believe the TV news story is a substantive reliable source on Phillips, you can cite it without linking to YouTube. See 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NF||WP:CITEVIDEO)