Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam Bayliss


 * 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 No consensus. —bbatsell ¿?  20:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Adam Bayliss

 * - (View AfD) (View log)

I'm going to invent a "three-template rule": if an article has three or more templates at the top, saying that it's POV, non-notable, etc., then it's probably a good candidate for deletion. YechielMan 04:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Note Why is an editor with a one-month history at WP already proposing articles for deletion and trying to create policy? --Kevin Murray 19:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions.   -- Eastmain 09:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. NN John Vandenberg 14:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete The notability claims are all to red links...! The JPS talk to me  14:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The red links simply indicate that the films don't have articles yet. (They may or may not merit articles.) It's not relevant to this discussion though - notability is specifically about what's outside of Wikipedia. CiaranG 19:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Redlinks fixed expanded to blue or removed as non-notables subjects unlikely to merit articles at WP. --Kevin Murray 19:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep YechielMan is way off base. The number of tags is irrelevant to the AfD.  These are put in the article as a means to suggest improvement.  The AfD discussion should be related to the notability of the subject and the adequacy of the sources.  The quality of the writing is relevant to a rewrite.  I see multiple non-trivial sources, with an award, and a need for editing.  --Kevin Murray 18:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I see one non-trivial source, the Australian Film Commission. What's another? CiaranG 19:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I consider the http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1344512/ to be independent at least . It discusses Several more sources were found as of --Kevin Murray 20:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Edited to remove weaselly-fluff and removed NPOV tag. Remains unlinked from other articles, but I don't see that as a fatal flaw.  --Kevin Murray 18:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Despite the poor reason given for nomination the article fails WP:N, so he worked in the art department, doesn't mean he deserves an article. Making his own short films doesn't show notability either. Firelement85 18:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The following quote is from the WP Guidelines: "Notable here means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice", not "important" or "famous". It is not synonymous with fame or importance. It is not measured by Wikipedia editors' own subjective judgements. It is not "newsworthiness"."
 * He has attracted notice and won an award. The references meets the criteria for multiple independent sources.  Firelement85's opinion of whether he "deserves" an article is his/her "own subjective judgements" specifically prohibited by the guidelines.  --Kevin Murray 19:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Being included in meaningfull film festivals is the equivilent of independent reviews of his work --Kevin Murray 19:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * He is still not worth noting, more than some people true but not enough to be included in Wikipedia. He worked in art departments of some notable Australian shows. Doesn't mean he's notable. He has worked with Latent Image Productions and Rebelstudio on WillFull which isn't notable, Latent Image Productions could be considered notable by the fact that the CEO was the Executive Producer of The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert but that was before Adam joined. That he was given finance to create a short film is great but if the film then doesn't do much it's not of any importance, yes it showed in a couple of film festivals where hundreds of other films may have been shown, unless the film is nominated for an award or receives acclaim then it isn't worth being noted. (Kevin you should rework the article you created Raw Nerve Short Film Initiative as the text is cut and pasted from other websites and likely in violation of copyright.) Firelement85 07:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, information from other websites, but not cut & paste. The text was rewritten, but there are only so many ways to say the same thing. --Kevin Murray 01:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete no news articles to be found in with google news or the EBSCOHost system which shows he has not even attracted local news interest. Looks like a good film producer but has not made enough of an impact in the world to have verifyability from reliable sources - Peripitus
 * I've looked through this after Kevin's expansion and, although the article is not too bad, he still misses the notability required to meet biographical requirements. The 7 news link does not mention him, his IMDb bio paints him as just another crew member. All of the links I've followed show the short films he's produced as being shown but there are no reviews of their importance, no online bio information on him outside the Australian film corporation and the only news article (the Age from melbourne) mearly notes the plot elements from Luna and the Moon. What we're still lacking is commentary on his importance from reliable sources. Even a news article about Adam Bayliss would help but I can't find that anywhere. There are mentions in the press that his films are showing at the festivals listed but no mention of Adam himself. Based on the username of the creator the article also is an autobiography at least in it's original form... - Peripitus (Talk) 00:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

(Talk) 23:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep seems well cited now and reasonably notable. --Kukini 23:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Kevin, I didn't explain myself well enough. I was looking through the list of pages tagged as problematic for notability and found this guy, and there were two other tags also, and I figured it was a lost cause, so I sent it here.  I could have written in my nomination "nonnotable, fails WP:BIO but I got bored.  Anyway, I acknowledge that the article has been improved significantly.  (By the way, I have been making sporadic contributions to Wikipedia, sometimes as an IP address, for more than a year.) YechielMan 01:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't mean to rain on you unduly, but when editors spend time writing an article the AfD to remove their hard work should be serious business. But on the other hand we are all volunteers and it should be fun as well.  Welcome! --Kevin Murray 01:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand your frustration - clearly a lot of work is on the line here. Unfortunately adam is not in the class of John Safran but more like Olivia Rousset, the winner from from Race Around the World but still without an article- Peripitus (Talk) 04:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

*Comment Well, it looks like were going down in flames here. I don't think that losing this artile will shake the pillars of WP, but neither would keeping it. I think that Adam is in the grey area of notability. Oh well; oh hell! However I think there are some confusing precedents being asserted here:
 * Delete Sourced marginally well but he still fails WP:BIO. GassyGuy 02:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Cannot find any references for him under a search for "Adam Bayliss" film in Google News Archive or Google News . A similar search of Ebbsco's Australia and New Zealand Reference centre also failed to find sources. I would reconsider if reliable sources were found. Capitalistroadster 03:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete The article has improved a lot recently, but I'm persuaded by User:Peripitus that we should be holding out for some outside press comment on the significance of his work. Adding references that only prove the films are being shown does not seem sufficient. EdJohnston 03:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * (1) Capitalistroadster says that we don't have relaible sources. But we have many citations in the bibliography.  Is that because our sources are online?
 * (2) EdJohnston says "we should be holding out for some outside press comment", what is the outside press? Is that referring to printed material?
 * (3) People keep saying he lacks "importance", while WP Bio specifically says that "notable" is not as high of a standard as "important" or "famous".
 * (4) I think that people are equating the short length of the movies with a lack of impact. Because the genre is less noticed, doesn't mean it isn't noticed.
 * (5) People have said that the references are about his work rather than him. I think this is fallacy; when the body of work is notable so is the creator.  Inherently the producers are in the background compared to the directors and actors, but their contributions are none the less notable.
 * (6) The author has provided some background information about Adam's TV work, but some critics above have focused on the non-notable contribution to the more famous genre, rather than look to the notable contribution to the less famous genre. It's a lack of being able to see the trees in the forrest through the clutter of underbrush -- a writting style of building to the climax, rather than putting the NOTABILITY in bold in the first paragraph.
 * --Kevin Murray 02:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC) Paragraphs reordered to emphasize notablility --Kevin Murray 15:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep: The guy seems notable enough to me. You know, if Wikipedia had been around when Vincent Van Gogh was alive there wouldn't have been an entry on him either. Of course, he's no Van Gogh but come on, the fact that his short films have received worldwide distribution is enough to consider him notable, even if not world famous, which are not synonmous.A mcmurray 18:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep: I thought he was notable even before I found some more references. -- Jeff G. 21:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. I don't know that he strictly meets the WP:BIO guideline as the primary subject of multiple articles, but this is now a well written and well sourced article. There are enough verified minor claims to notability to jointly justify the article.--Kubigula (talk) 23:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Well constructed article about someone who has notability, albeit modest, but he's not just making films in his backyard with college chums. The latter is not notable. Tyrenius 23:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete fails Bio. I don't even see this as a borderline case. Most of the cited links seem to be there to pad it out because they aren't even about Adam but rather TV shows he worked as an assistant dresser on. Please. Sarah 23:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Sarah, please see my note above about not seeing the forrest through the trees. There are 2 references (now none 19:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)) out of 18 which relate to his minor TV experience; you need to look  a little deeper at the references before accusing people of "padding".  --Kevin Murray 01:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Kevin, I opened and viewed every single link listed under "Bibliography" and "Notes". Most of those links only cite his name, some don't even mention that and then you've got a couple that list his very, very minor professional TV credits. As I said, the links pad out the reference list and give the appearance of notability when in reality this guy simply isn't a notable Australian and he isn't a notable film maker. He's making not-notable shorts, some as part of courses, to send in as entries into film festivals and to community TV. He's just not notable and his films are just not notable. Sarah 02:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Sarah, I didn't write this article. I found it at AfD in pretty poor shape and have worked to remove a lot of "puff" and focus on the only notable aspect, which is as a film producer.  However, other editors have felt that citing information about his TV work was important; I moved it to the bottoom of the article to deemphasize it. --Kevin Murray 15:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, there are links to sites which mention him as included in the festivals etc.; it's not how he is mentioned that is important, but where he is mentioned that supports the verifiability of the text. --Kevin Murray 15:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * We seem to have different opinions on what is notable, but don't read in that I'm trying to subvert the process. --Kevin Murray 15:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, it's an absolute stretch to call him an "award-winning Australian Film Producer" on the basis of the Raw Nerve Initiative. The Raw Nerve Initative is a partly government backed minor funding program, not an awards program. It gives a very small amount cash and very limited services to make a short film. That's it. Sarah 02:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Borderline satisfaction of notability requirements, in my opinion, so erring on the side of keep. CiaranG 23:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I would like to point out that Australian International Film Festival is by no means "recognized"; it a new festival that has assumed the old name of a notable film festival, Canberra International Film Festival. So much so that I feel a bit dirty having created the article on Wikipedia, but I had already done the research and felt it was important to point out how non-notable it was (maybe a dab page is in order). John Vandenberg 08:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I had not included the Canberra International Film Festival in the text but added it now, as his film is listed at that site --Kevin Murray 15:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment I have cut the article to reduce puff per Sarah's comments. Tyrenius 12:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * *I agree with removing the citations to the "puff". I've done that in the past though and gotten into edit wars with editors who think that every piece of trivia deserves a footnote (I didn't put in those links).  --Kevin Murray 15:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak keep per above... Addhoc 16:59, 20 January 2007 (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.