Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steven Richter

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. Daniel (talk) 04:55, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Richter

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

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

Doesn't appear to pass GNG Pipsally (talk) 13:16, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Pipsally (talk) 13:16, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:19, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:20, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is written in an unclear way. –Cupper52^Discuss! 14:14, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything unclear about the article, and, anyway, if it was written in an unclear way that would be a reason for editing, not deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:46, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is nothing here even close to showing notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:25, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's Comment The user RRfeatures - current adding a bunch of sources either self published or with passing mentions - appears to be another name for Reverie films, which is Richter's production company. Pipsally (talk) 11:46, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well spotted. I've left a message for him/her. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:55, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's also worth nothing this appears to be a self-created article by the subject to begin with. The new sources being added have no substantive references to Richter's personal notability, being largely listings or non-notable reviews.Pipsally (talk) 12:06, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not meet WP:GNG, see below Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:54, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table
Source	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
http://web-old.archive.org/web/20161227200530/http://primeiroplanocom.com.br/site/index.php/academia-internacional-de-cinema-inaugura-curso-de-som-para-cinema-e-tv-no-rio-de-janeiro/		Mention is fairly brief	✘ No
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1753573/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_0	IMDb is not reliable		✘ No
https://lfs.org.uk/content/raindance-selects-center-gravity-and-when-song-dies		Just a name check	✘ No
https://oregonconfluence.com/2013/01/27/birds-of-neptune-a-film-by-steven-richter-is-currently-in-production-in-portland-or-to-be-released-in-fall-2013/	Blog		✘ No
https://www.hammertonail.com/film-festivals/slamdance-2015-preview/			✘ No
https://screenanarchy.com/2015/01/slamdance-2015-review-birds-of-neptune-of-malady-and-mysticism.html			✘ No
https://www.thewrap.com/slamdance-unveils-remaining-2015-lineup-exclusive/		As with the two above, this is a passing mention	✘ No
https://eatdrinkfilms.com/2015/02/05/slamdancin-in-park-city-ficks-top-five-picks-and-a-batkid-bonus/	Blog		✘ No
https://www.oregonlive.com/movies/2015/01/portland_independent_film_make.html			✘ No
https://silverscreenriot.com/birds-of-neptune-review/			✘ No
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt4132010/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_0			✘ No
http://revista.algomais.com/cultura/academia-internacional-de-cinema-oferece-bolsas-para-formacao-em-audiovisual		Doesn't appear to be mentioned	✘ No
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JaMoEPRY-Ps&ab_channel=AcademiaInternacionaldeCinema%28AIC%29			✘ No
https://www1.folha.uol.com.br/fsp/ilustrad/fq0502200718.htm		Not mentioned	✘ No
http://roteironews.blogspot.com/2010/05/robert-mckee-em-sao-paulo-e-no-chile-em.html	Blog		✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Delete: obvious (self?)-PROMO, non-NOTABILITY entity. GenQuest ^"scribble" 02:14, 3 February 2021 (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.