- 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. 23:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
delete fails notability, only nominated, did not receive academy award Buridan 01:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No vote (for COI reasons), but I'd like to point out that the information is verifiable by reliable sources, and he gets a decent 8300 ghts on "jeff britting". !vote as you feel right, though. Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 01:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Last time I looked, this wasn't actually a vote, but something more like a discussion where we try to reach a sensible conclusion. WMMartin 18:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That's why I put the "!" in front of "vote"; i.e. it means "not a vote". Antandrus (talk) 22:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I don't believe the subject satisfies WP:BIO. He has very few film credits. [1] Furthermore, he personally was not nominated for the Oscar for Ayn Rand: A Sense of Life (note that the article doesn't actually say that he was). --Metropolitan90 04:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. MER-C 06:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per BIO and probably COI. SkierRMH,09:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per user Antandrus . The info is verifiable by reliable sources. --SECurtisTX 21:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as Associate producer of movie he is by my understanding less notable than the Producer who is not a wikipedian. TonyTheTiger 22:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- A difficult one. Doesn't appear to be widely known to the public at large, and I couldn't find a review of his book in a widely-read publication. Further, I don't think his composing/film work hits notability on its own. However, when googled his name pops up all over the Randian world, so he's clearly important in that niche, and his book appears to be reviewed and regarded as consequential there. So I'm inclined to say Keep. I can't imagine most people will ever want to read this article, but the same is true for other biographies of niche experts. We're aiming to be encyclopedic, and we're not paper. WMMartin 18:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I could see the argument for inclusion, but a minor figure in a niche arena does not really seem to me to be encyclopedic. I could see him being in say a dictionary of objectivist bibliographies, but that's about it with the stub article that we have. --Buridan 18:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, should have made myself clearer. I'm not an expert in Objectivism, though of course I've heard of it, but it seems to me as an outsider that within that realm Jeff Britting is well-known as an archivist and biographer. Certainly, when you google him and look at the way other objectivists discuss his work it seems that he is taken seriously, and his contributions are valued. That is, though he works in a niche area, within that area he appears to be more than a minor figure, and for that reason I believe we should keep this article. What we really need, of course, is input from a couple of objectivists, but failing that I'll stick with my original assessment. WMMartin 13:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with people who say that his role as associate producer of a movie is not notable, by the way. It seems to me that his notability arises from his work in the field of Rand-studies, not his dalliance with Hollywood. WMMartin 13:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, the book is interesting, being a book of photos... i could not find sales numbers on it, and it does not seem to be cited anywhere, but I ouldn't expect that. I'm not sure that the book lends notability as much as popularity for those people that want pictures of Rand. --Buridan 13:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- From what I can work out, the book takes the form of text, copiously illustrated with photos. One reviewer even comments on this when he notes that the photo captions include information not mentioned in the main text. WMMartin 21:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I could see the argument for inclusion, but a minor figure in a niche arena does not really seem to me to be encyclopedic. I could see him being in say a dictionary of objectivist bibliographies, but that's about it with the stub article that we have. --Buridan 18:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- weak Keep based on his film work, I'd say delete as nn - however, that minor work combined with the fact that he does appear to be somewhat notable within a specific literary/philosophic niche due to his book, seems to meet the minimum level of notability. Per WMMartin above, just because the area of notability is a niche need not alone preclude inclusion. --Krich (talk) 23:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete not notable on his own. Just H 21:03, 20 December 2006 (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.