Talk:J. K. Amalou

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the J. K. Amalou article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

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

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Actors and Filmmakers

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers.

France Low‑importance

	France portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Recreated[edit]

I'm aware that this was deleted at AfD but there seemed to be a consensus of all concerned, including the nominator @Bearcat: that the article could be recreated with sourcing that would establish notability. It's not heavy heavy coverage, but his 2012 film received 8 reviews at Rotten Tomatoes and a 2015 film received 1, enough to where he'd pass notability guidelines if this was taken to AfD or DRV. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:07, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No worries here. As deletion-happy as I may appear sometimes, I virtually never have any objection to recreation of an article if the notability and sourceability can be made better than they were the first time — and, in fact, I'm often the first one to point out, when I see people complain about an AFD result, that the deletion does not constitute a permanent ban on the subject ever having an article, but that a new article can be recreated again if better notability and/or sourceability can be shown. I did add a stub tag since this is still a short article in its current form, but I'm not going to take issue with the recreation itself. Thanks for putting in the extra effort! Bearcat (talk) 16:18, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problem - I wasn't really worried about you being delete happy, mostly just that I'd re-created this so quickly after the last AfD closed. I've done recreations before, but normally it's at least months or years after the fact. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:11, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Contested speedy[edit]

I'm going to contest the speedy because the article contains far more content and sourcing than it previously had per my note above. It looks like one of the films he's directed has an article that passes NFILM and it also looks like another of his movies, Deviation, could warrant an article of its own given the available sourcing. At the very least this would have to go through AfD, however I think that there's likely enough sourcing here to justify inclusion, given that the director's work has received coverage from Total Film, The Guardian, and The Standard. Sourcing didn't fall all over themselves to cover him, but it looks like there's just enough here to pass. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:50, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CSD removed, the new sourcing is enough for me to see it doesn't meet G4. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:01, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]