Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Adams (filmmaker)


 * 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. The sources are questionable at best. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 01:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

George Adams (filmmaker)

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

Ignoring the obvious glowing content masquerading as information, article is missing reliable sources to confirm notability of a creative individual. IMDB credits are minor at best, and a simple news search didn't reveal any articles about the individual apart from the minor publication already listed. tedder (talk) 22:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  --  I 'mperator 22:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * DeleteLocal news coverage is insufficient to establish notability. Drawn Some (talk) 22:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete as spam. Edward321 (talk) 23:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. The sources seem like puffery, e.g. a "Reuters" link is actually a PR newswire piece, i.e. a press release. Fences and windows (talk) 02:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Advertising. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 14:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC))
 * Speedy Keep per assertions of notability and easily found sources G News 1, G-News 2, Google 1, Google 2. That the article is disgustingly full of hyperbole and advert is a mater for WP:CLEANUP, not deletion. Didn't anybody even look??  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 06:12, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment it appears most of those are either (a) a different George Adams- it's a very generic name or (b) are press releases. Can you find specific articles from reliable sources to indicate notability? I couldn't. The IMDB profile doesn't indicate much either. tedder (talk) 06:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I have a bit of time and will re-visit the article to do some major sandblasting. Either I improve it and find sourcing, or I will return here and change my iVote.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 17:25, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If you revist, you will see that the hyperbole and advert have been removed and sourcing has begun.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 19:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. The sourcing is still poor. The FanCast page has no content, the Spotlight On Awards are not notable, and the rest of the sources cover his films, not him. There are still no reliable sources that have Adams as the subject. Fences and windows (talk) 01:33, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong keep per MichaelQSchmidt. Granite thump (talk) 20:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * *Note that the above user has been voting "strong keep" in numerous afds without ever providing any reason. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:59, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * and now he's going around adding the exact same rationale to those votes. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:29, 4 May 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.