Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gene Fallaize


 * 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   delete. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 18:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Gene Fallaize

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Another promotional article for Gene Fallaize, the CEO of Cupsogue Pictures (afd). Article appears to be mainly original research and lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Only references outside imdb are primary sources. No indication awards are important and the Total Film award is not for Fallaize. Only notable film Fallaize is connected with appears to have him of one of at least 38 "executive producers" with the dvd possibly listing ~989 executive producers. No indication he had a significant role in it's production. (probable coi issues involved) Duffbeerforme (talk) 18:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I created this article as I saw there was not a page for Gene Fallaize, yet there was a few months ago. You say there is a lack of sources, but a brief glimpse at IMDb proves his validity, and his titles are for sale on Amazon.com. Just because you at Wikipedia cannot confirm his role on 'Outlaw', does not mean he did not hold a significant role, but he has produced more than that production, and if you are seeking further clarification, look on Amazon.com at his titles which prove he is a producer with released films. I would put this on the page - and did - but it was deleted. Also, the Total Film award was issued by Icewhole.com, and was to the film, not for anyone in particular, in which case awards go to the producers for producing said film. And the other award is "not important"? What qualifies for an "important award"? Please let me know if I am being unreasonable, but it appears you have taken it upon yourself to delete all the articles I have created, when all I am trying to do is add to, and help improve Wikipedia by adding information I know to be true, which can be confirmed with trusted industry sources including the production books, and also the IMDb, which works closely with filmmakers and studios to ensure it's information is totally correct. Thank you Larrywilliams101 (talk) 21:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Larry. Have you been taking editing tips from Graham? No one has questioned the validity of Fallaize. I'm sure he exists and has been involved in the production of some films. That simple fact does not make him notable. What qualifies for an "important award"? An example of an important award is the oscars. That award has received considerable coverage from sources that are not directly connected to the oscars. Duffbeerforme (talk) 21:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Who is Graham? Where can I view the policy on what makes someone notable, as I feel deleting three of my articles is a little unfair, but if I can correct them to be in live with Wikipedia's policy, I will do so. Out of interest, are the Academy Awards ("Oscars") the only awards that Wikipedia classes as being notable enough? Thanks Larrywilliams101 (talk) 23:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Follow the blue linked word notable. That policy article tells you about notability and links to other more specific policies such as Notability (people). And no oscars are not the only awards that Wikipedia classes as being notable enough, it was just one example. Duffbeerforme (talk) 15:05, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

In fact, after looking at the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions, I'm amazed at some of the notable people that have been proposed form deletion, yet some use IMDb as a reliable source, and others don't... What is the reason for this inconsistency between editors? The page I created for Fallaize has references outside of IMDb, but the IMDb itself has verified Fallaize's credits, including appearing as himself on notable TV shows, including the broadcast of the 80th Academy Awards ("The Oscars" - which he was a guest at, and which you say is a notable awards ceremony, which can only be attended by specially invited guests and those within the academy), and 'Good Morning America'. Surely anyone who has made themselves a name enough to appear on such broadcasts as themselves and after producing films that have been released and are verifiable on Amazon.com have enough to be classed as notable, no? Larrywilliams101 (talk) 00:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * IMDB is not a reliable source but is a usefull source. Sources that are not reliable sources can still be used to provide information but they do not help show notability. You say he appeared on 'Good Morning America' and the broadcast of the 80th Academy Awards. In what context? To what extent. Where is a source that verifies that? Duffbeerforme (talk) 15:17, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * EXTREMELY Weak Keep Though he has a small amount of notability and good sourcing, it appears he is at the beginning stages of a possible notable career. The article is over-written and needs major clean-up. Too much puffing for a small time producer. In addition, being invited to the Oscars is not notable, being nom is. BioDetective2508 (talk) 00:49, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "it appears he is at the beginning stages of a possible notable career" sounds to me like crystal ball reasoning. What might happen is not a good reason to keep. Duffbeerforme (talk) 15:23, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Being involved with a bunch of non-notable films doesn't make you notable. Nor does winning minor awards. Being executive producer might do it....if the movie didn't have 30+ other so-called executive producers. Fails WP:CREATIVE in my mind. BTW, IMDB is not considered a reliable source. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - no coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. No evidence that he is notable through any of the other criteria for people in the creative arts. - Whpq (talk) 16:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 17:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete Page and content seem to be of regular debate and editing. Suggest page is removed or kept, but not kept in limbo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.130.122.146 (talk) 20:17, 14 July 2009 (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.