Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brad Zellar


 * 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. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 01:35, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Brad Zellar

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No indication of notability. The Daily Page seems the best source; other than that, we just have blogs and some local Twin Cities coverage. That's not enough to justify an article. No additional sources found via Google. Huon (talk) 05:59, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak keep, I'm still not overly impressed by the sources, many of which mention Zellar only in passing, but he scrapes by WP:BIO. Many thanks to Mkdw for his work. Huon (talk) 20:47, 16 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - Also looks like it may be a promotional piece just meant to link to all his books for some reason. Aside from that, no sources found that establish notability. gwickwire  talk editing 06:04, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - Meets all things now imo, thanks Mkdw :D gwickwire  talk editing 18:28, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete: The article is not really in a promotional tone (except for the external links, which can be removed), but notability seems to be the issue.  smt cha hal  (talk) 06:50, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Voting to keep the article instead, per Mkdw. The article still has some issues, but they're not enough to get the article deleted.  smt cha hal  (talk) 08:38, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep and NOTE: I have done a major rework of the article since the above comments and nominations; addressed the tone and promotional element of the article, added reliable sources, and discovered some very important facts that would make this person notable:
 * The Coen brothers film A Serious Man (nominated for the Academy Award for Best Picture) was based off his book Suburban World: The Norling Photographs
 * One of his books is the recipient of an award by D&AD, a British based photography society
 * One of his works was selected by TIME in their 2011 selections for photography books.
 * Has written several professionally published books.
 * Collectively, the above when totalled against WP:AUTHOR, I think in my own opinion, that the article should be kept. There appears to be more room for the article to be improved upon, but now the article should be kept and remaining problems are editorial in nature. Mkdw talk 08:27, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 16 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete. Person is not so well known. 100.45.66.2 (talk) 19:33, 16 April 2013 (UTC) — 100.45.66.2 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * You mean aside from the sources? WP:UNKNOWNHERE Mkdw talk 19:48, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * This may be the subject himself, based on his rationale and the conversation he previously had with helpers on IRC. gwickwire  talk editing 03:04, 17 April 2013 (UTC)


 * delete Possibly notable, but the article is so greatly exaggerated as to be promotional, and needs rewriting from scratch. The primary basis for notability would be the relationship with the film, but the actual quote from the Coen's is not that the film was based on Zeller's book, but that "the look of "A Serious Man" is based partly on the Brad Zellar book 'Suburban World: The Norling Photographs,'" That's much less in the way of significance.  DGG ( talk ) 21:23, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Erm, WP:GNG could be argued to be met here, hence the keeps. This was AfDed before a major rewrite, so.. gwickwire  talk editing 21:29, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm a little surprised at this comment DGG. You've cited a promotional tone to the article as being a problem, specifically it's wording used to claim it's relation to the Coen film, BUT you've pointed out something as the basis of your argument that the article does not say. In fact, it actually says how you think it should be worded: "partly based on"... By the way, I rewrote the article entirely and removed the promotional elements in the article. It is no different than any GA or FA article when it talks about his books and work; e.g. development and limited reception. There are no terms puffing the piece that aren't cited or unjustified except for the mistaken way how you think the article relates his book to the film. I needn't remind you, but WP:AUTHOR has several criteria and he's 4/4 on them: WP:SIGCOV, award, many times published, work was selected in TIME, and a major film was partly based off his book. Again, a bit shocked DGG because usually you're so thorough, and it's not like you to misread the actual text and wording of an article; it almost seems like you looked at the article prior to the rewrite I did and used the stuck out !votes as your basis. Mkdw talk 08:12, 20 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment For clarity sake, the article looked like this as a stub at the time of nomination and I rewrote the article to bring it in line with other articles about authors. It literally went from 200 words to 2,000. Mkdw talk 07:58, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment The film was not based on the book. The appearance of the film was based on the photographs of the book. "based on" means that the story of the work was used, not just some aspects of the visual appearance. I would certainly be willing to consider removing the material and keeping the article, but you're arguing that the minimal relevance is the major importance.  DGG ( talk ) 03:48, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree that the film was the main claim to notability; it makes several. The most important was the WP:SIGCOV the writer has received. This is clearly demonstrated in the article. One editing stylistic choice of a few words being the basis of an entire delete argument (overriding WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR) as "so greatly exaggerated as to be promotion it needs rewriting from scratch" is not reasonable when the fix took less than 10 characters to change in the diff. I am agreeable to the changes and it took no where close to a rewrite from scratch. In my own opinion, you should have !voted keep for notability, but brought up the inaccuracy as an improvement needed. Deleting a 900 word article because one source is misquoted but has a plethora reliable sources, published words, award winner, etc. I cannot see justifying delete over an editorial concern. Mkdw talk 23:20, 24 April 2013 (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.