Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan McCurdy


 * 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 SNOW delete. Absolutely no reasons for keeping have been put forward. If we ignore arguments about side issues, such as whether a photograph was a different person, how old the subject of the article is, whether an editor has acted dishonestly, etc, and look instead at the arguments about whether the article should be deleted or kept, we have 100% support for deletion. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:10, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Alan McCurdy

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Not notable person. Was declined speedy. Extremely weak references aside, only claim to fame is being a 1st Assistant Editor on a movie. Possible hoax. Dennis Brown (talk) 02:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I was not aware you had to be famous for multiple things to have a Wikipedia article. I mean ive seen articles with the same or less IMDB credits but i guess this one doesnt count. (EaglesX63 (talk) 02:19, 3 November 2011 (UTC)) — EaglesX63 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Please read What about article x, which may help to clear up some confusion about the issue. Dennis Brown (talk) 02:20, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, not notable, probably could have been speedied. Hairhorn (talk)
 * Delete - serious credibility issues on this one. Article claims he was born in 1980, yet the IMDB lists his first production assistant credit in 1986, and his first editing job at age 12 in 1992 - I'm sorry, but that's just unbelievable. No significant coverage from reliable sources. MikeWazowski (talk) 02:27, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You keep bringing that up but i told you in about 3 different places it was a typo. That is the most logical reasoning but you refuse to accept that. You said it should be speed-ed because they aren't important but the IMDB shows multiple credits for movies he has worked on. (EaglesX63 (talk) 02:32, 3 November 2011 (UTC))
 * Multiple credits, yes, but multiple minor credits. In a case like this, one of the things then looked at is what coverage he's gotten in reliable sources, and there don't seem to be any reliable ones (as noted, IMDB has issues) in the article. —C.Fred (talk) 02:40, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * IMDB and Wikipedia work under the same basic policy, so you are indirectly insulting Wikipedia that way. He is a valid editor and if you looked at the IMDB page for him you would see that the edits didn't all come at once. If this was a "hoax" like it was claimed in the other page, it would be a pretty massive scheme. If IMDB doesnt float your boat, would this work? http://ace-filmeditors.org/ https://www.editorsguild.com/Magazine.cfm?ArticleID=650 http://tv.yahoo.com/alan-z-mccurdy/contributor/700826(EaglesX63 (talk) 02:49, 3 November 2011 (UTC)) — EaglesX63 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Again, I'm finding serious credibility issues. You originally wrote 1980, now you claim 1970 as the date of birth. However, the photo appears to be someone in their early 20s. This link makes it seem like he's still a student at Georgia College & State University, as does this link. The rest makes no sense - he majored in business, works at a high school in Georgia, yet somehow he freelances as an editor on major motion pictures? Sorry, I don't believe it. More interestingly, this link shows video of the "Alan McCurdy" who worked on Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End, and he doesn't look like the individual pictured in this article. The picture at this article doesn't look like the individual pictured here either. MikeWazowski (talk) 03:02, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No-Shave November, and as to the school I don't know much about that I just know I talked to him on Skype the other day for my college class. Maybe he has a kid who goes there? He is in his 40s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EaglesX63 (talk • contribs) 03:08, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * This is the real Alan McCurdy. notability issues aside, he's a completely different person from the individual pictured - which according to the commons description page is most likely EaglesX63 himself. MikeWazowski (talk) 03:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * My names actually Kyle, that wiki isn't me, that photo isn't me. I took my photo off of imageshack titled Alan McCurdy, you are more then welcome to edit the article too. Also you're just proving my point that this person is in fact real and significant. (EaglesX63 (talk) 03:24, 3 November 2011 (UTC))
 * If that's the case, then your claim that the image is your "own work" is false. MikeWazowski (talk) 03:39, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Ahem, I was entitled to uploading the photo as my own under Imageshacks code D section I article 23. For you to make such slanderous claims over and over without concrete evidence can be construed as harassment. (71.226.220.248 (talk) 20:47, 3 November 2011 (UTC))
 * Ahem, if you are posting as 71.226.220.248 and EaglesX63 here being the same person, and you have on the article to remove speedy delete tags as the IP (bypassing rules on creator removing speedy tags), I do believe that is called sockpuppetry, which I already suspected but this rather confirms. Dennis Brown (talk) 23:22, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * My thing doesn't auto log-in and I forget sometimes. I can tell you though that there were 3 IPs in which 2 of them were not me posting and making edits. Please don't shoot i am unarmed.(EaglesX63 (talk) 23:47, 3 November 2011 (UTC))
 * Kyle, please, stop lying. You said you took the image from an Imageshack site, which means you did not create it. If you *had* created it, you would know that it is not the person in question. You uploaded it to Wikimedia commons, claiming it to be your own work. By your own admission, this is false, and therefore a lie. There can be no slander when the truth backs me up. And pray tell, where is this "Imageshacks code D section I article 23"? It's not in their Terms of Service, it's not in their FAQ... why do I have this sneaking suspicion that this is just something else that you've made up? MikeWazowski (talk) 00:59, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - lacks a reliable source (see self published sources) to meet notability guidelines. EricSerge (talk) 02:43, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong delete this version with possible recreation in future. It's beyond just a lack of reliable sourcing; the claims are really failing to hold water. If EaglesX63 took a photo of the subject, you'd think he'd have more concrete information. That said, an article about McCurdy the editor, based on reliable sources, might fly; however, there's just too much contradictory or dubious information for this version to be salvageable. —C.Fred (talk) 03:40, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Even assuming we were talking about the editor Alan Z. McCurdy whose IMDb page is here, I would be skeptical that he should have a Wikipedia article. Per my interpretation of WP:CREATIVE, even someone who worked as the main editor for films would probably need to need to be an Academy Award or Eddie Award nominee, or comparable, to qualify as notable -- and McCurdy isn't even at that level; he works primarily as a first assistant editor or assistant editor. (He has only two credits as the main editor of a film, the more prominent of which is Soccer Dog: The Movie.) But I'm not even convinced that this article is about the real Alan Z. McCurdy. The person described in this article isn't even employed full-time in the film industry. It looks like a real person's filmography has been combined here with some statements that are not actually about him. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:43, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment This is exactly why IMDB can't, and should never be use used as a reliable source to verify potentially contentious facts. It is an interesting link, provides some useful info, but is not, and never will be, a reliable source for the purpose of establishing notability.  This is because it is user input (like Wikipedia) and not professionally vetted, which was my justification for the speedy to begin with.  The situation "looks like" someone taking a picture of themselves with their webcam (note the eyes in the shot, looking at the screen), and claiming credit for the work of someone else who is older but poorly documented, and attempting to do a sly job of vandalism.  Note the two SPA IPs that piped in and removed tags previously. (checkuser would be interesting...)  While Wikipedia requires I assume good faith, this walks and quacks like a duck,  and I would be foolish to assume it isn't.  While I respect the administrators decision to bump it out of speedy and won't resubmit myself, I disagree with it, and feel another bite of that apple would be appropriate.  I don't like the feeling of being "played", and anyone who actually reads the totality of events in this article can see this is clearly BS.  Dennis Brown (talk) 11:18, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:TOOSOON and a lack of verifiability making this one a BLP violation. And note, work as an "assistant" editor rarely give one the coverage that could meet WP:ENT or WP:GNG.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 20:53, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment After speaking with the man himself today, once again via Skype, I have found some resolve to most if not all issues at hand. He graduated in 1992 at the university in question. For his editing career he works on roughly one project a year so he can afford time for his leisurely activities like trumpet lessons. When he was 16 he began as an intern helping out with the editorial crews from the films and television productions. While doing his internship he pursued a degree in business in hopes to raise his own production company. As for the photo he did not recall ever taking it, however did not deny its possibility of it being him. As for not having enough sources there are plenty in this topic provided by the kind Mike from Monsters, Inc. If you were to allow this article to stay up we could work together on cleaning it up. Thanks! (EaglesX63 (talk) 21:00, 3 November 2011 (UTC))
 * I am seriously disappointed that an admin hasn't just speedy deleted this article and blocked this user for disruptive editing. If anyone looks up at my other point above, it is pretty clear he is sockpuppeting as well.  Dennis Brown (talk) 23:22, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I've just done a little editing of my own on the article; anything that wasn't a film credit is on the cutting room floor, since it wasn't in reliable sources. And first-hand interviews are not reliable. We can wait for an article until after there's information on him published in reliable sources. —C.Fred (talk) 23:35, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I've also done some editing, removed the one citation because it didn't even mention the movie it was citing. I also updated his "best known" as he was listed as only an assistant director for that project, as well as other logical edits.  Was going to add him to the cat. 'movie editors' but we don't have that. Dennis Brown (talk) 23:53, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * We do have Category:Film editors and more specifically Category:American film editors. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:24, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete: I was very close to speedy deleting this under A7 grounds, but it's just borderline enough that this should be finished via AfD. However, we're very rapidly getting to WP:SNOW territory, as no policy-compliant keep rationale has been provided yet.  Qwyrxian (talk) 00:29, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete - lacks multiple WP:RS to satisfy WP:BIO or even WP:GNG … simply having a profile on IMDb does not make someone notable. Happy Editing! &mdash;  07:28, 4 November 2011 (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.