Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stuart Humphryes

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 keep. (non-admin closure) Vipinhari || talk 17:08, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart Humphryes

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I cannot see how colourising three Doctor Who episodes is notable - even with third party coverage. Tiny beets 02:21, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:40, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There was third party coverage precisely because it was notable technical and artistic achievement. The work premièred at the British Film Instutute because it was a notable achievement and the coverage in national magazines and trade publications was a result of the work being noteworthy. He is the only UK-based film colourisation artist and his colourisation technique differs from that used by other commercial olourisation processes, as detailed on the Wikipedia article on Film colorization. Chaotic Galaxy 02.43, 12 March 2016 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaotic Galaxy (talk • contribs) 02:49, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Marginal but Stuart Humphryes may not be finished. Soft Keep 45sixtyone (talk) 02:58, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Checking out the article's claim that "He is more widely known by his alias "Babelcolour"" brought back tens of thousands of results on Google. All the ones I opened to check were about him and his work, so there's obviously an active sub-culture out there of people taking an active interest in discussing what he does. It consequently strikes me as perfectly reasonable that there should be some basic biographical information available to them on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pupsbunch (talk • contribs) 03:28, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please bear in mind Chaotic Galaxy seems closely linked with the subject. Tiny beets 03:44, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Tiny beets is quite right - I am closely linked with the subject. I know him personally and offered to upload a photo to his page. But that shouldn't preclude me from voicing an opinion in a debate. I have no conflict of interests: I know hundreds of people in my life and I don't think any of the others are notable enough to make a case for them. But just because I know the person doesn't make me a troll or an internet vandal or in any way devious. I'm just an individual with an opinion like everyone else here and even if I was the subject's own mother (which I'm not) it shouldn't mean that I'm ignored if I make valid points. And in the interest of fairness you will all notice I didn't actually cast a vote and the AfD Vote Counter shows I have remained out of the process. But it really shouldn't prompt a warning from the person advocating deletion merely for voicing what I think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaotic Galaxy (talk • contribs) 20:55, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Just because Humphryes has concentrated on one genre up-till now (i.e., Doctor Who) doesn't mean his work is not notable. Just like Laurel and Hardy did not (as far as I know) do other genre like Shakespeare etc. Yet Humphryes is advancing the way of colourization that others follow. Anyone that is aware of his skills and influence in cinematography would certainly consider that he has a place on WP. His work may be under most editors radar because he is not an egoistical self-publicist, instead he is a doer that creates results. Why leave WP littered with articles like [Circus Drive-In] which features batter-dipped onion rings and fried Maryland softshell crab.--Aspro (talk) 16:40, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to post a vote because I am one of the people who's helped edit the page and so have a bias in thinking it is noteworthy enough stay - but I have a genuine question about "reliable" independent sources. This link below is to 20 independent reviews of his colourisation work. Although they are all independent they do consist of a hotch-potch mixture of trade site, fan sites and individual blogs. We have no way of knowing which are (or are not) permissible to link to in the "Critical Reception" section. Are any valid? Even if two out of the 20 are considered OK it adds weight to the case. Please have a look and let us know (or suggest if this is better on the talk page)/ Thank you. Here's the link to them all REVIEWS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.37.13 (talk) 11:07, 21 March 2016 (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.