Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geoffrey Engelbrecht


 * 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 for all three nominated articles, per consensus. The three articles do not meet the primary criterion of Notability, namely being the subject of multiple independent secondary sources. Nor does an award from Lausanne Underground Film and Music Festival meet the criterion as laid out by Notability (films) - BanyanTree 09:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Geoffrey Engelbrecht

 * – (View AfD) (View log)
 * – (View AfD) (View log)
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Appears to be an autobiography. Neither a notable entertainer with widespread recognition nor a notable academic. Additional articles nominated, created by the same user, are vanispamcruftisement with questionable notability. MER-C 11:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all per MER-C. tomasz. 11:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all. Notability has not been established for any of the four articles listed. Jay  &dagger;  Litman  12:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Making your own movie is great, but not notable. No sources provided so nothing can be verified. -- Cyrus      Andiron    [[Image:Flag_of_Indiana.svg|24px]] 13:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I hadn't realised Wikepedia was exclusively for Hollywood productions. Clean won first prize at a notable underground film festival in Switzerland.  I accept that it is of specialist interest.  The article is factual and neutral.  If that does not fit with Wikepedia then by all means delete it. --  Geoff13          13:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment It's called conflict of interest. Additionally, there are no reliable, independent sources for the majority of this information, and there is no assertion of notability. Being "factual and neutral" is not enough. Phony Saint 14:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If it is "factual and neutral" then by Wikipedia's own definition of conflict of interest there is no conflict of interest. Regarding references there are references to the films own website, film festivals it was presented at and IMDB. As for notability I defer to the notability of the film festival which I see is also questioned on english Wikepedia however a quick Google search will confirm many non-trivial references to it including those on French Wikipedia.  As I said this seems to be more an attack on this article not being mainstream.  --  Geoff13          14:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Nothing in WP:COI suggests that you should add information about yourself, even if it is true. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." A quick Google search confirms many trivial references. Phony Saint 14:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The only references listed in the article, link to IMDB (not a good reference) and your own websites. Those are not reliable secondary sources indepenedent of the subject. -- Cyrus      Andiron    [[Image:Flag_of_Indiana.svg|24px]] 15:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment There are references to every film festival the film has appeared in including the Lausanne Underground Film Festival where in the archive section of their website you can find the list of winners from 2005. I realise from your comments you have not actually spent much time looking at the article.  Please read the first paragraph of WP:COI.  If the article is "neutral" then it is not in violation of WP:COI.  It is clear this is an attack because the article is not mainstream  (i.e. the artist is not a "notable entertainer with widespread recognition")  If this is what Wikipedia is about then by all means delete the article. --  Geoff13          15:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. But it's not "neutral". You wrote it yourself, about yourself. It's not that Wikipedia is biased against anything that isn't Hollywood (and i think you actually know yourself that's it's highly disingenuous to keep claiming this), it's just that it's biased toward stuff that's actually notable. If you fall under the radar, that's tough stuff, but you'll just have to go and work on becoming notable enough for someone else to add an article about you. Otherwise each of us'd be merrily out in article space writing reams and reams of trivia about our myriad achievements. And that'd be a "blogosphere" or some other horrible neologism, but not an encyclopedia. tomasz. 16:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. There is no guideline in Wikipedia against writing about oneself. It is discouraged because of possible problems of neutrality but not forbidden.  Neither does doing it imply that neutrality is violated.  The original comment was that the entertainer was not well known.  This is why the article is being attacked.  Otherwise you will need a stronger arguement as to why the article is not factual or neutral to convince me that this is anything but an attack on the fact the director is not well known.  I cede the fact that the biography relies on the website of Geoffrey Engelbrecht.  But the movie has numerous refernces which are not related to the film company or the director. --  Geoff13          16:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. "...to convince me that this is anything but an attack on the fact the director is not well known." Are you suggesting that not being notable enough is an insufficient reason for this article to be deleted? We could leave aside any conflict of interest issues and it would be still be inadmissible on the grounds of not being notable. "The original comment was that the entertainer was not well known. This is why the article is being attacked." <--- you're not exposing some kind of conspiracy theory here, you're just summarising the reasons against the article. tomasz. 16:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Read the Wikepedia entry on notable. It clearly states that a subject must not be famous to be notable.  The original article I wrote was about the film.  I wrote it because of the article about the festival.  The festival is a world reknown underground film festival. Films from all over the world appear there.  The festival is notable but not mainstream.    Clean won first prize there.  I infer notability from that fact and the fact that it also appeared at a number of underground festivals throughout Switzerland and Italy.  Most festival websites have an archive section describing the films which appeared which can verify this information and that is why they are referenced.  The biography and company pages were to fill in background information for the film.  I understand this is specialist information and not mainstream.  I was extremely careful to list facts only and not colour my comments with adjectives so as to maintain neutrality.  I am not uncovering a conspiracy only a hypocracy.  Nevertheless if it is the policy to only accept world reknown entertainers into Wikepedia then by all means delete these articles and the thousands of other articles about people who are not well known round the world.--  Geoff13          18:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete because the world will end if lesser-known Swedish directors get their own Wikipedia articles *rubs hands together* (no seriously, per nom and serious WP:COI issues. You can't write an article about yourself and seriously expect people to buy that you're being neutral). JuJube 18:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Ok my last comment as I think I've made my arguement. But I can't resist: honestly how can you comment when you didn't bother to look at the pages.  I'm Canadian and live in Switzerland.  Where does Sweden come from?? ;-) --  Geoff13          19:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Brain fart on my part. I thought "Switzerland = Swedish" for some reason. I blame tight pants. JuJube 19:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Vanispamcruftisement Having read this article I felt compelled to make one last statement before Clean and no doubt the Lausanne Underground Film and Music Festival are burnt from Wikipedia. The comments from the article on vanispamcruftisement that "the owner of a small company, about that company, name-checking the owner of the firm with a brief resume of his skills, and in respect of a company whose products appeared on the face of it to be of strictly limited appeal outside the world of geekdom" smacks of my point that anything not of interest to the masses should be eliminated.  This reminds me of a fellow German Adolf Hitler and the arguements he raised for the elimination of the Jews and the destruction of books which conflicted with the views of the majority of Germans who brought him to power.  An encyclopedia which is full of well known facts accepted by the majority isn't of much value to someone who wants to know something they don't already know. --  Geoff13          07:37, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment You're still attempting to dodge the notability and verifiability problems by claiming discrimination, when really nobody even knows enough about you to bother discriminating. And as everyone knows, whoever mentions Nazis first loses. Phony Saint 18:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Not in the slightest. I have stated my case for the notability of the film and there are a large number of references for its verifiability.  The only arguement that keeps coming back is conflict of interest and yet no one has pointed out what about the article is not neutral.  In all honesty the pages have no value to me whatsoever apart from the time it took me to assemble them.  I am insulted about the attack being extended to the Lausanne Underground Film and Music Festival and having read the article on vanispamcruftisement all becomes clear.  There is a policy here by certain people to attack pages that are not mainstream.  Otherwise give arguements why a film which won first prize at a world reknown underground film festival and has appeared at numerous other film festivals throughout Switzerland and Italy (Two of those festivals asked for it to be included without our applying) is not notable.  Geoff13 06:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The main issue is not necessarily that it's not notable, but that you're writing an article about a work you created yourself. Comparing people who think the article should be deleted to Nazis will NOT HELP YOUR CASE IN THE SLIGHTEST, by the way. JuJube 18:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment "The main issue ... that you're writing an article about a work you created yourself." Why do I feel I am going in circles.  There is no guideline in Wikepedia forbidding writing about work you created yourself.  The reference to Hitler is a reference to someone who suppressed minorities and relates to the arguement that Clean is not notable because it is not well known.  It has no relevance to your arguement which may be the main issue for you but is not the main issue for others. Geoff13 10:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Commment. You feel like you're going in circles? Suppressing minorities by violent death is hardly the same as removing an online encyclopedia article that doesn't meet standards set for notability for films by the said encyclopedia. Maybe you should try asserting the film's notability instead of making crass and wildly irrelevant comparisions. Like which of these does Clean/you meet, for instance? and before you say it, i know those are guidelines and not concrete rules. tomasz. 10:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Commment. "The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking." I think that's the third or fourth time I've said it. Look I said from the beginning if underground films are not mainstream enough for Wikepdia then delete it.  Geoff13 11:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. I think a number of people might disagree with you about that word "major" in "major award". But whatever, i'm done with this discussion. tomasz. 11:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm sorry you think so little of underground films. But then that was my point from the beginning.  It isn't my loss only yours.  Geoff13 11:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Believe me, it's none of mine. tomasz. 11:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Just having a look at some of the pages you've created tomasz. and I think it is funny someone who feels so pationately about obscure bands is so quick to kill something equally obscure. But I guess everything is relative. Geoff13 14:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. The difference is that the articles i've created have been about things notable by WP standards and independently verifiable. There's a lot of bands i like that aren't really notable enough and therefore i haven't created articles for. That's why i haven't made one for my old group or the album we made in 2002: not notable enough. A passion for obscure cultural items isn't mutually exclusive with a standard those items should reach to be included in an encyclopedia. i don't think Saigon High Chair Pirates are encyclopedic, you think Clean is. so it goes. tomasz.</b> 14:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Why is Threat any more encyclopedic or for that matter the majority of the films listed in the Short Films Stubs Category? I selected three and not one of them indicated they had won an award at any festival?  I must admit I don't know any of the bands you have written about.  Looking at three of them picked at random I was not impressed your references were any better than mine.  Again I saw no awards or any other indication that would merit those bands to stand out from the crowd.  Again I guess everything is relative. Geoff13  16:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Other stuff exists. Phony Saint 16:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It does indeed. Geoff13 16:47, 8 May 2007 (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.