Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greg H. Sims


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 18:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Greg H. Sims

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

No reliable third party sources provided in article and I was unable to locate any via Google. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Appears to be a advertising or a puff piece, Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising. Also fails WP:BIO; no reliable secondary sources to be found. ThePointblank (talk) 07:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 *  Weak Keep. Ridiculous WP:SPAM, but imdb asserts that he exists and has produced several movies. It gives him enough notability to pass WP:BIO. D ARTH P ANDA duel 13:00, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Could you clarify which portion of WP:BIO he passes? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Clarification. If you check his imbd page, he has several movies. That qualifies for your reliable third-part source. Furthermore, if you check the movies, I personally have never heard of any of them, but they clearly have been produced and released to movie theaters. His movie has been the topic of quote "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." D ARTH P ANDA duel 21:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Clarification: IMDB has not historically been considered a reliable source due to its user-edited nature. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:29, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * What are you trying to say? Was he not a producer for all of those movies? Do you wish for me to find more sources other than imdb? D ARTH P ANDA duel 22:00, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I assume the IMDB entry is probably accurate; my concern is that articles require coverage by reliable third party sources to be notable, and IMDB is not a reliable third party source, so it does nothing to demonstrate the subject's notability. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 13:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't fully understand why this is such a big deal Sarcasticidealist? There are multiple places via GOOGLE that verify Greg and the info here. Not sure what you typed in the search bar but I recommend you retry and check the spelling. And if there are any other places you suggest we could find info via a 3rd party that isn't edited by a man, I will gladly go add it to the page. I want to make this right so this page does not get deleted. Thank you for any input you may have on this. I added external links on the bottom that might help some more. User:Digirammy duel —Preceding undated comment was added at 23:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC).
 * As per: WP:CREATIVE:

Creative professionals Scientists, academics, economists, professors, authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, engineers, and other creative professionals: I do not see the article meeting any of the criteria listed, nor have I found any reliable third party sources. Google has not returned any reliable sources that meet WP:PEOPLE's basic criteria. ThePointblank (talk) 06:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors.
 * The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
 * The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
 * The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums, or had works in many significant libraries.
 * Delete promotional article for a person of marginal notability. RMHED (talk) 20:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete does not meet WP:BIO.  <Dloh  cierekim  20:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * change to keep per MichaelQSchmidt below  Dloh  cierekim  21:49, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know why you would take this guy off of Wikipedia....I've seen several of the movies and have heard of him as a producer of films in LA. He almost bought one of my friends treatments and turned it into a movie. I also know he has been involved in George Clooney's and Eric Robert's careers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.105.27.51 (talk) 00:14, 5 November 2008 (UTC)  — 71.105.27.51 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * weak keep Outrageously puffy article,but if he has produced the films he says he has, he would quite possibly qualify for an article. . IMdB is reasonably reliable for things like that, but it does not seem to be cited. DGG (talk) 00:22, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  14:45, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, i trimmed out the puffyiness to get it back to the verifiable facts. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:51, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 *  Weak Definite Keep. With respects to the nom, remember the suggested alternatives to deletion? If cursory search shows the likelyhood of improvement, the article should be so tagged. Deletion is a last resort. Google news has his name is several articles as well.... WP:ATD    Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 15:05, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you point to which of these "shows the likelihood of improvement"? I don't see a reliable source on the first page. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 15:15, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * ?? The google news search as above, brings 134 articles for "Greg H. Sims, producer"... And the very first page shares FOX, ABC, and the San Francisco Chronicle 2007 articles in its first 3 links dealing with Sims and the Spector trial. Then a 1990 Los Angeles Times review of Sims' film "Red Surf". Then a 1997 Variety article. Then a 1987 Washington Post article. Then a Los Angeles Times article from 1998. Then a Los Angeles Daily News article from 1998. Then a USA Today from 2007. Then a Washington Post article from 1987. Then a Los Angeles Times article from 1988. That's just the fist page. Of course, if you do not think these sources are reliable...  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:05, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * And its possible that User:Darrenhusted might even be able to return a rewritten version of some of the assertions of notability he removed, by using these sources.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 15:09, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I have all the information from the original page before there were any of these edits made to make it "better". If you would like User:MichaelQSchmidt I can repost it all and you can make appropriate changes from there since User:Darrenhusted seemed to remove multiple other legitimate facts about this person that had multiple sources proving their legitimacy. DIGIRAMMY
 * Sure, those sources demonstrate that he's produced those films (and that he's testified in Spector's murder trial). But even when sorted by relevance, the first articles about his activities as a producer are just listing movies' credits.  There's nothing in there that provides anything remotely resembling biographical information, and there's not a single article that I've found that has him as its subject. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:38, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - A producer and writer of many films and per sources provided by MichaelQSchmidt above, seems to pass WP:BIO. --Oakshade (talk) 03:32, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note - MichaelQSchmidt just added five references to the article. Of these, three do not mention Sims at all and the other two are subscriber only, so they may or may not mention him.  The sources are find to support material about the movie (which may well belong in the Sims article, if it is kept), but do nothing to demonstrate Sims' notability. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * CLARIFICATION: The assertion of notability in the article is that Greg H. Sims is a writer/producer for low-budget independent horror films, and that one of his first films was the critically acclaimed Return to Horror High. The sources as added, reflect that either 1) he was the one who wrote the film, or 2) the film he wrote was CRITICALLY ACCLAIMED - Los Angeles Times 1: "...doesn't reach all its tongue-and-fang-in-cheek goals. It always seems better written than directed...", Washinton Post (in first paragraph and NOT having to buy a subscription: "... a low-budget horror movie that, contrary to advertising, is not another slasher picture but a spoof of one. Now and then it's quite funny...". BloodAndSleeze: "This clever little effort isn't necessarily a spoof of slasher films contrary to popular belief, but rather, it's a lampooning of the low budget filmmaking process in gener", EatMyBrains: "...what makes it a memorable contribution to what at the time was becoming a fairly stagnant genre...", I-Mockery: "this movie is supposedly a satire of a real horror movie, but it comes off as something quite different"... all showing the the work of this writer is accalimed and THAT acclaim is his.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 20:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sourcing all content, even if the sources don't mention the article topic, is always encouraged and those sources validating content have nothing to do with determining the notability of someone. As far as "subscription only" sources or others that aren't immediately available to everyone, print and other reliable sources are always acceptable sources.  Just because there is no hyperlink to a source doesn't mean we assume bad faith of the content providing editor and those sources magically unreliable or don't exist.--Oakshade (talk) 19:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree completely with the above; I wasn't intending to suggest that the references were inappropriate, just that they do nothing to demonstrate the article subject's notability. Apologies if I was unclear. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * See my clarification above. If a writer's works are acclaimed, that notability is the writer's.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 22:01, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Further, I have re-written the darn thing to remove the unsourced fluff and peacock.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 02:14, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. I like this so much better now. Vote changed from Weak Keep to Keep. D ARTH P ANDA duel 02:24, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment My own keep is now upped from "weak". Once I removed the peacock and fluff, and corrected the assertion of notablity, sourcing was quite easy. In light of no acceptance or acknowledgement of WP:ATD, the nomination seems more like WP:UGH.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 22:32, 7 November 2008 (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.