Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christopher Zalla

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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 delete. Aoidh (talk) 11:53, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Zalla

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Christopher Zalla (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable film person. All sources found are PR links, nothing extensive in RS. Oaktree b (talk) 18:39, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep- He is very notable he wrote and directed a grand Jury prize winner at Sundance and two of the PR links you mention are not PR links the New York Times and ArtForum . Would you please be considerate enough to follow the links first before presenting a catch all argument like that.
I will put in many more links momentarily. Plus the Law and Order episode he directed. There is nothing wrong with proposing am article for deletion there is something awry about doing it without flushing out the points of departure first.Strattonsmith (talk) 21:47, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • VERY STRONG KEEP here as well : Director Christopher Zalla not only won the grand jury prize at Sundance. He earlier won the best director prize at that festival, making him among the festival's most cherished alums. Also, this new release Radical is slated to be among this year's huge hits. More, both that and his earlier film Padre Nuestra are among the most mainstreamed American films to be produced in exclusively in Spanish. This is very significant. To delete, frankly, feels a tad unwoke. JackthePelican (talk) 05:06, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is JackthePelican's sole contribution to Wikipedia, so far. -The Gnome (talk) 10:28, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Film reviews that aren't about him? We need articles that discuss the person. Simply getting mentioned in the New York Times is wonderful, but we require an article about the individual, not a "name drop". Oaktree b (talk) 20:30, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well to start the HolLywood Rporter piece does that [3] and there are several interviews which talk to him in depth and I do not believe that they can all be classified as PR pieces... If you are going to take on this argument which you have I do think it is your onus to investigate the links rather than just saying what they are. For my part I will search out and employ more sources that talk about him specifically.. I am about to write the page for the movie Radical which has a list of 29 reviews on Rotten Tomatoes but my eye is strained this conversation has pushed me optically as far as I can go. I regret that I have but one set of eyeballs to give to wikipedia to feel my skills are engaged use them or loose them as opposed to the cyclops who had but one eyeball to give to Odysseus in order that he would forever remain part of the storyline,Strattonsmith (talk) 20:46, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what any of that means. We need articles about the person, not a mention in whatever website you have. Oaktree b (talk) 23:17, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's a caption under a photo, the article isn't about this person. Mentions and small listings like this don't help notability. Oaktree b (talk) 23:18, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Collaterally the whole thing adds up he not only directed the films he wrote them the films are very notable he is the creator of two prize winning films the second as you can read is about to break you are not trying to work with me you are trying to take every last detail and prosecute the case because that's how you see yourself in the Stanford Prison Experiment scenario here. So you argue that there is no notability which is clearly not the case from the legions of articles it comes down because you use your power to take it down and then ten more magazines publish articles and the film as you can tell from the reviews and the audience award is bound to be a hit and somebody else rewrites it and what did you prove that you can argue to have it taken down that happens over and over and over again here except in this case he is very clearly already notable. So you run my engines just so you could to drive a point which is only that you win a momentary battle. You need to read everyone of those articles because you are misrepresenting the facts. There are 29 articles on "Radica" itself alone and I will keep posting until this is proven . Plus he did a lifetime movie and two episodes of Law and Order which in of themselves does not make him single handedly notable but the acclaimed films written and directed by do. Strattonsmith (talk) 23:59, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment - The newspaper and Latino media posts have in depths reports the San Antonio Curren the Utah Review there is the in depth coverage widespread across different media titles everything from articles in Mexican American centers of population to big city national newspapers to entertainment magazines like variety and the Hollywood Reporter the coverage is broad based. Strattonsmith (talk) 02:57, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I wasn't originally going to weigh in on this as I have little interest in the film world, but the WP:BLUDGEON being put forward by the 'keep' !voter isn't based on policy at all. Yelling "VERY STRONG KEEP" and posting over and over doesn't count as six !votes. The argument seems to be WP:CRYSTAL, i.e. that this individual is about to release a film that's about to be huge and about to attract significant coverage of him and his work, so don't delete the article now. The article should be deleted, and if this future film comes out and gives this person significant coverage, the article can be created again and actually referenced this time. Flip Format (talk) 09:26, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The film has been screened and reviewed and it is referenced from those events having occurred, Strattonsmith (talk) 23:53, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. @Flip Format (talk) The argument about the film which has already premiered perhaps yes I overstated which was out of frustration because I should not have reacted having felt that the sources are multifold and it is being said they were something they are not all PR in totality from the onset of this discussion. That said the film about to be a hit should not be the reason and I would strike that you are correct. The very strong keep was another user there are not six votes there are two votes and comments. There are the prior films to the one which I overstated there are many sources. I will apologize for the overstatement I do not want to use that word bludgeon though the Crystal is apt. The later is not the main argument the directive employs it was part of overdoing it. I just could not fathom that some editors were saying there was not proper coverage when there is. Thank you and I will try to not get carried away. The coverage of his first film the Grand jury Prize winner and the second theatrical release together is significant .
What I should have done was just have left it as a simple analysis though I think I do now impart a solid argument and let subsequent voters decide for themselves which is correct. But please if voting peruse the links , the references, the sources.
Thank you for hearing me out. Strattonsmith (talk) 11:36, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The rationale and WP:BLUDGEON by a couple keep voters is not grounded in actual WP:NOTABILITY WP:GNG policy pertaining to subjects of this type. Right now I am inclined to push for deletion because I don’t see any compelling policy based argument to keep, but will do my own independent search for evidence of notability first. Shawn Teller (hy/hym) (talk) 19:56, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: BLP Fails GNG and BIO. The article has been refbombed with bare URLS, but these are all promo, brief mentions in articles about other subjects, interviews, etc. Discussion above shows nothing here meets IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. BEFORE showed nothing that helps meeting GNG or BIO, just more of the same. None of the Keep votes show sources or base their comments in policy or guidelines. But policy is clear: BLPs need clearly IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability to avoid abuse per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV).  // Timothy :: talk  20:09, 2 April 2023 (UTC)  // Timothy :: talk  20:09, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete on account of lack of sources supporting subject's independent notability, sources adequate in number and appropriate content. There is just a plethora of citations that simply does not withstand scrutiny. Try as I might, I could not find enough support for this text to merit article status. Some forensics:
  • The Film Maker link contains interviews with all participants in Sundance 2007; you're in Sundance, you get interviewed. The Columbia University link is even more generic: it's a list of all Columbia alumni making it to Sundance; you're an alumnus, you get mentioned. The archived link to IFC is a simple list of the 2009 Independent Spirit Awards nominations, with a single mention of our subject. The San Antonio Current link takes us to a routine presentation of films then currently screened in the city, with one movie from our subject among them. Then, we get a New York Times report "in brief" about 3 new movies out and about, one of which is, again, directed by Zalla. One more interview of Zalla and actor Eugenio Derbez in an IndiWire link. (For interviews, see here & here.) Then, Salt Lake Magazine reviews all Sundance films including one by Zalla.
  • More of the same: A Yahoo Money link lists all 2023 Sundance Film Festival awards, with our subject name-dropped once, exactly what the ArtForum link and a MetaCritic link about "Worse & Best" also do. There's a report from Texas Monthly about many films ("El Paso–born wrestler Cassandro, Edinburg High School mariachis, a Matamoros teacher") and in there one film by Zalla is presented. This link takes us to an article about film editor Eugenio Richer, including an interview of him; Zalla does get mentioned. We, then, get an interview with actor Eugenio Derbez, in which Zalla is mentioned. The remainder of invoked sources is worse: The Rotten Tomatoes listing; etc.
  • In sum: We can find many reviews of one or two films of our subject artist, such as here, here, here - but not here from a blog. The films themselves could possibly, albeit barely, make it into Wikipedia. But this does not make their creator notable as such.
Subject fails WP:GNG, WP:ARTIST: Is he "regarded as an important figure"? Has he "created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work"? I find no evidence for any of this. Still, I sincerely wish for a future inclusion. -The Gnome (talk) 10:26, 5 April 2023 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Christopher_Zalla&oldid=1209369740"