Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam Leipzig


 * 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) ––Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs)  23:07, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Adam Leipzig

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

the sources cited in the article are generally about the projects Adam Leipzig worked on. At least one editor of this article, user:Todhardin, is a close associate: he contributes to the blog that Adam Leipzig started The other accounts that have edited the article have him as their sole topic of interest. 1Veertje (talk) 16:53, 7 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2019 July 7.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 17:04, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:18, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:18, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:18, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:19, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:27, 7 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete: Ugg... I think he meets GNG but it gets real cringy promotional at the end. ThatLawStudent (talk) 19:56, 7 July 2019 (UTC)  Striking !vote by a sockpuppet. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:42, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: This could go either way but ultimately, I agree with ThatLawStudent.  In fact, couldn't have said it better myself! MaskedSinger (talk) 20:51, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * that's after I removed the worse bits. I suspect he thinks his farts smell like roses because an equation he came up with that happens to validate any salary for media executives is a theory and a blog post about a vague prediction warrents a hypothesis to be named after him. 1Veertje (talk) 21:55, 7 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete Lacks WP:SIGCOV. Being an executive in a movie studio that puts out product makes one notable why? Some cite links either don't work or don't mention the subject, and writing a column or two for  The New York Times doesn't cut it. StonyBrook (talk) 04:53, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep article was indeed created by an inexperienced COI/SPA.  But the thing is,this movie producer/promoter/corporate exec is notable.  I have added a little sourcing to the page, which needs work.  But this passes WP:CREATIVE and WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:24, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not getting the CREATIVE part, I see only promotion, making things happen behind the scenes and some public speaking. But I see you've added some paper sources. StonyBrook (talk) 14:55, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, well, not exactly paper. I use online archives, in this case Proquest newspapers, because it is really hard for editors attempting a good faith BEFORE to access the impact that a 2005 film had.  PAYWALLS.  ugh. I know.  But we're talking about stuff like the Los Angeles Times giving Leipzig and his new genre INDEPTH coverage.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:28, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I take your point. I have now clarified that. The Washington Post, New York Times and other INDEPTH coverage credits him with creating a new genre of film by reinventing nature documentaries, i.e. that his redesign of a run-of-the mill French nature documentary  with dramatic music, and a great voice over gave the MILL nature flick drama and narrative drive, turning ho-hum-wanna-learn-about-birds into the prize winning blockbuster March of the Penguins.  Creating a new genre (which is also charaterized by the fact that it refrains from showing much "nature red and tooth and claw"  footage) is a CREATIVE act.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:13, 8 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep - assuming good faith, this appears to be more than an ordinary producer. Bearian (talk) 19:29, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * most of the sources talk about the projects that he supervised, not him. Most of this work is not something you would link to him if you were to write an article as an outsider. Starting over would be more efficient than editing out the enormous bias in this article. 1Veertje (talk) 07:22, 9 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep as per the additional references added to the article since nomination that show significant coverage in reliable sources such as The New York Times, Washington Post and so on, so WP:Basic is passed. Regarding promo content that can be edited out and watched for by neutral editors, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 23:09, 8 July 2019 (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.