Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam Phillips (animator)


 * 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  22:18, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Adam Phillips (animator)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Massively over the top promotional lovefest for non notable animator. Lacks independent coverage about him in reliable sources. There is a lot of sources but nothing good for gng. Primary, blogs, listings, him talking about himself and minor mentions. Nothing good for gng. No significant roles in notable productions. None of the awards are major. TV/film credits fall short of notability. duffbeerforme (talk) 06:30, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * "gng"? What does that mean? No significant roles in notable productions? He's the assistant director on Bob's Burgers (even the upcoming feature film), was effects director on A Goofy Movie, on An Extremely Goofy Movie, on The Lion King 2 1/2, created some of the most popular animation shorts on Newgrounds (the Brackenwood series), is backed by Epic Games through their Epic Megagrant for the short film project he's working on at the moment. I think he's notable enough. Is also a general former animator at Disney Australia, when that studio was in existence, having worked on a lot of their animated TV series, both doing some character work but mostly animating effects and later directing the effects department. Deletionism is a disease. Constructivism is the only way. --Luka1184 (talk) 16:17, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:20, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * GNG. Assistant director of Bob's Burgers, one of many working behind even more directors. "effects director" on the goofy movie? A role so significant that it's not mentioned? Perhaps because he wasn't. He was an inbetween artist, someone who copies someone else's work. The other movies, one of a large crew. Not a significant role. One of the most popular on a single website also does not cut it without good independent coverage. Working on a new short does noes make one notable. duffbeerforme (talk) 23:49, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:20, 22 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. The nominator's argument that the subject does not meet WP:GNG is unconvincing. A vaguewave rant about lack of notability, but no real effort to provide an actual source by source analysis of why the cited secondary sources present in the article are not suitable or adequate. Even with the removal of the subject's social media accounts and some primary sources, there is still adequate sourcing to demonstrate notability. Further, nominator did not provide an explanation that WP:BEFORE was done before the nomination was made, so perhaps this is in fact a bad faith nomination. Haleth (talk) 13:36, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Speaking of vague waves, in this entire attp you have failed to explain how he is notable. You have made a vague claim of adequate sourcing yet you have failed to identify a single good source. duffbeerforme (talk) 23:10, 27 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep Seems to have some significant roles passes GNG. INeedToFlyForever (talk) 14:55, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Another Vague Wave. What roles? duffbeerforme (talk) 23:10, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   08:44, 29 May 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I'm not convinced so far by the sourcing presented in the article - a lot of non-major news sources, passing mentions, or just interviews. I'd like to hear other folks thoughts.
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2021 May 29.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 14:46, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: Definitely written as a promotional piece, not an encyclopedia entry. Needs some serious editing and trimming. Definitely has numerous primary sources that don't support any valuable content (including interviews, citations 8-11). His positions at Bob's Burgers is out of date using language as "To this day", whereas IMDB shows him ending in 2019 while citing the subject's own LinkedIn page (which is also not up to date and omits another assistant director position that can be found in IMDB ). The sections for Selected works and Awards have no citations at all. Trimming the promotional stuff is an editing project, not a reason to delete the article. However, editing and trimming the article before AfD would certainly make it a lot easier for others to decide on whether or not the OP's nomination to delete is valid or not. If the OP's assertion is true about no extensive independent coverage for the subject/person, then WP:NBIO may not be satisfied. I'm not sure artistic notability covers it, because assistant director may not be a co-creator. Remember, notability is NOTINHERITED, and being a cast member and mentioned in IMDB doesn't make you notable no matter how notable the TV series is, especially when there are over 10 other assistant directors named that overlap the time period Adam Phillips worked there. Since OP seems most familiar with the article and subject, perhaps he should take a big pair of scissors to the article at this time. I agree that it needs a major chop. Platonk (talk) 08:26, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 19:01, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: I just did a major edit on the article based on concerns expressed in this AfD, including removing some content related to WP:ABOUTSELF, WP:ORIGINAL, WP:VERIFY etc. I went over every section except the Dashkin section (got tired and just bundled it together, untouched). Still, most of the citations remaining in the article are either from Adam Phillips' own website bitey.com or are based on comments made by Adam Phillips in interviews. There is no news media coverage, only industry-related blogs and stuff. He may well be notable, but I don't see it yet. Platonk (talk) 23:35, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Platonk I'm late to the party here but catching up. I've looked at the page and your very helpful edits. I am inclined to agree that it still looks/feels too much like a CV. My approach would be to substantially edit the page based strictly on reliable sources, in effect start afresh (like what I recently did | here that resulted in saving the page from deletion (see discussion | here)), but I don't want to tread on your toes or belittle your valiant clean-up work! However, having just searched for reliable sources via a ProQuest database search of Australian and NZ newspapers (deeper and broader than Google) I can only find a single reference, so I think this page cannot pass GNG. Cabrils (talk) 02:29, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete: Okay, I've mulled it over for a few days and I'm ready to place a vote on this AfD. This guy has basically been a technician and occasional supervisor in the field of animation, also done some documentation/training. This is no different than anyone who has ever been in technical/computer positions for one or two decades. However, he has ZERO coverage that doesn't include a direct interview with him (all are primary sources by Wikipedia editing definitions). His stints at Bob's Burgers didn't net him anything more than "film credits" -- which are important in the film industry, because it's part of your portfolio to help get hired for your next gig, but is no more notable than saying he was "on staff" for a particular film. A search for "adam phillips bob's burgers" finds not even a brownie point by Wikipedia notability standards. His main client from freelancing (Toon Boom) used him liberally and seemed happy with his work, but their coverage of him is not "outside of the industry". There are zero book reviews of the first three works/books in the article; the last has a single review which basically says the book is part of the company's manual set for the software: "With apparent co-operation from the company itself, the book serves as an extension of the software’s official literature." He just doesn't reach notability by WP:NBIO or WP:GNG standards ("received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject ... Primary sources ... do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject"). I vote to delete the article (even after all the work I did on the article, which was basically an exercise in seeing if I could do something or learn something to help break the impasse of this relisted AfD). Platonk (talk) 04:40, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep: I have reviewed all arguments above, but looking strictly independently, there are significant coverage on him from several sources such as, , , etc. Peter303x (talk) 09:01, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Of your three examples, the first is a brief mention with no depth of coverage, the second is not independent (was published by his client, basically a press release about an event), and the third is an interview (primary source). None of which contribute towards notability, though they may contribute towards content, per Notability (people) and Notability. Platonk (talk) 00:52, 13 June 2021 (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.