Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Craig Considine

:{{la|Craig Considine}} ([{{fullurl:Craig Considine|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Craig Considine}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

Claims of notability (films showed on CNN/BBC.. "published extensively in numerous newspaper and journals across the globe") are not backed up by references.. BBC news clip is an interview (?). Google shows minor coverage from non-notable sources Omarcheeseboro (talk) 22:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Delete When I saw the page creator summarised the creation as "This is notable because he is an up and coming film director and scholar affiliated with world renowed Islamic scholar Akbar Ahmed. if there's a problem, then i must be missing something. sorry!" I thought, "now there's not a good opening!". "Up and coming" usually equals non-notable (yet). May be some day. Not yet. I've looked at the beginning of the Noam Chomsky interview "Directed and edited by Craig Considine" posted on iReport and saw "iReport.com is a user-generated site. That means the stories submitted by users are not edited, fact-checked or screened before they post.". Self-published, in other words. And very amateurish camera work, to my mind. I didn't see any mention of him on the BBC clip, which stated "we" interviewed implying the BBC did it. Being viewable on YouTube doesn't exactly confer notability. To me, the article is puff. Peridon (talk) 22:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• Delete (I originally speedied), essentially for reasons stated by Peridon. This young man may be notable someday, but he isn't yet. NawlinWiki (talk) 23:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

::Comment: I thought that the claim of being published extensively in numerous newspapers and films showed on CNN/BBC got it past CSD. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 00:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

::Comment I don't trust 'claims'.... Peridon (talk) 18:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

:::Comment My reasoning for not sending it to CSD is based on this from Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion: "A7 does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source." --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 16:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - no coverage in reliable sources to indicate notability -- Whpq (talk) 18:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Pass neither WP:PROF nor WP:BIO. A search on WorldCat returned zero entries. Peridon covers the problems related to WP:BIO well.--Eric Yurken (talk) 16:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
• Weak delete. Did some sourcing. He's also a writer and reviewer... but mostly on blogs and special interest sites. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
• Delete The min element for notability is the "Journey into America" project, and when that is finished, he might become notable. But not yet. DGG (talk) 01:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

:*Agreed. Hope the closer considers userfying the article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

: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.