Deletion of Rusty Nails (filmmaker)

Comment: Subject appears to meet  based on a google news search which to indicates recognition as a low-budget indie film maker.  Content disputes are not a reason for deletion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: With the nominator's horrible logic and vague accusations aside, I don't think this meets |notability criteria because of a lack of |reliable sources- I could only find one student newspaper review, and bunch of interviews with the subject. If I could find third party information on the subject himself, I might change my view
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO||WP:RS)

Comment: seems just notable enough to me (http://www.portlandmercury.com/portland/Content?oid=33728&category=22133 The Portland Mercury, http://www.reelchicago.com/archive.cfm?storyID=835 Reel Chicago). Interviews with the subject should be acceptable as references if published in a reliable source (http://www.filmmakermagazine.com/archives/online_features/sweet_sound.php Filmmaker Magazine). There does appears to have been some vandalism to the article, but the nominator appears to have some |ownership issues with the article by the looks of the history and the talk page
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Ownership of content (WP:OWN)

Comment: You are not allowed to tell users not to edit an article. You should also point out how it is potentially libelous, what is incorrect, and why you think it is a flagrant violation of |Biographies of Living Persons
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP)

Comment: The vandal edits this article experienced follow a pattern of removing information that is sourced while attempting to make the subject appear ''less'' notable. IMDB is a citable source, like it or not. That an article has room for improvement isn't a reason to delete. I find the nominator's arguments specious and his assumption of bad faith disgusting. This article emphatically does ''not'' violate  and is ''not'' libellous; being "potentially" libellous applies to ''any'' biography of a living person. I doubt Jimmy Wales would seriously consider a secondhand complaint about a reasonably-written bio from anyone except the article's subject. If Mr "Rusty Nails" himself has a problem with the article, he is welcome to chime in; Xsxex doesn't speak for him
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: None of the nominator's reasons can be resolved by deleting the article. It passes  and  anyday. This should be on the talk page, not at AfD
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:BIO)