Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jordan Wayne Lee


 * 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. Michig (talk) 08:44, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Jordan Wayne Lee

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Dubious notability per WP:GNG and WP:BIO. The most notable claim is a Sports Emmy Award shared with 18 other producers. . This Emmy generated profiles in at least two local newspapers, the only reliable, secondary, non-affiliated sources. The other awards appear to be minor/non notable, contra WP:ANYBIO. All other sources in this article are either primary sources (interviews, the subject's website, names in credits), trivial mentions, or do not mention the subject at all. No other secondary sources so far discuss Lee's involvement in projects aside from the ESPN Emmy. While the subject is certainly an accomplished professional in his field, I believe it is too soon for an entry in this encyclopedia. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:24, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: The article was apparently created by the subject, . --Animalparty! (talk) 00:54, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:34, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:34, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:44, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:44, 1 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete Jwl220d came into the -en-help IRC a few times, as well as dropping a load of templates in an effort to convince us the article was notable - we tried to establish notability, but after multiple passes we were still unable to. I concur with Animalparty in that the subject is definitely an established professional with an impressive resume, but WP:TOOSOON definitely still applies.  please stick around even if this discussion results in your article being deleted: I feel like you could contribute a lot to this encyclopaedia! -- Thanks, Alfie. talk to me &#124; contribs 01:56, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Jwl220d (talk) 02:39, 1 February 2018 (UTC) It's become incredibly clear that --Animalparty! is holding a personal grudge because I questioned the contradictions with proposed edits made by them under my USER TALK page. Now this is up for deletion instead of working through the last edits? Ridiculous on your behalf.

So leave the notable claim and remove everything else. I’ve asked this be done multiple times only to be given the run around time and again. There was other notable sources - The front page of ESPN.com, Smashing Pumkpins.com, but those are no longer living on the web. Regardless, that shouldn’t discredit an award that is one of the top 4 most prestigious awards in entertainment. Please don’t try and discredit the fact that there are other producers involved. 1. I did all of the design work for this project and it was highlighted on those credible sources that aren’t online anymore. 2. There are plenty of others who have this award in conjunction with others on a project who are listed on wikipedia. The other awards appear to be “minor/non notable” to you, but they aren’t. And can you please elaborate what you mean by it is “too soon” for this entry into wikipedia? The Emmy was from 10 years ago. How much time needs to go by to validate one of the most well-respected awards in my industry? Can you please take your personal feelings out of this, make the edits and move on?

For example - Plenty of people NOMINATED, not won, listed here with multiple others and have their own article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primetime_Emmy_Award_for_Outstanding_Art_Direction_for_a_Miniseries_or_Movie

Jwl220d (talk) 02:39, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I have no personal grudge, and indeed, a 7-day deletion discussion is probably the best way to get an unbiased consensus (see WP:CONSENSUS). Others may well argue that your Emmy and the subsequent local news items are sufficient. Too soon (read the essay) means "Sometimes it's simply just too soon for some topics to have an article.", e.g. your achievements may not yet have been covered by enough third-party sources in depth to satisfy notability requirements. I would ask that you take your personal feelings out, and please understand that this discussion is not about you as a person or a professional, or even the fact that you created the article, it is about whether we can credibly make an article that is compliant with the policies of neutrality, verifiability, and No original research, following the various notability guidelines. In general, we only have articles on subjects that have received significant, third party discussion from reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The existence of quality of other articles does not factor into this discussion, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. There are over 5 million Wikipedia articles in various stage of development or notability, and any article can be nominated for deletion at any time. I don't commonly work on film/television articles,  but from some of the Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Art Direction for a Miniseries or Movie nominees, Walter H. Tyler won an Oscar and eight nominees, satisfying WP:CREATIVE and WP:ANYBIO. Similarly, William H. Tuntke was twice nominated for an Oscar, and as deceased there are likely obituaries that describe and contextualize his life and works, although if one failed to find adequate coverage one could propose deletion. What's more striking to me is the number of people in that Emmy category who don't have a Wikipedia article. They may well all have IMDb pages, but Wikipedia is not a database or "who's who". (FYI, see also guidelines on Citing IMDb and WikiProject FIlm guidelines on IMDb).
 * If you know of additional reliable, third-party sources that discuss your life and works, please list them here. They need not be online, as magazine, newspaper, TV, and radio coverage may be used. Again, notability is not inherited merely by working with notable people. The key grip on Star Wars doesn't have an article. Being notable on Wikipedia generally means you have been written about in detail by others over a period of time.
 * Lastly, I had considered removing everything aside from the ESPN work, but that brought up the issue of whether that alone satisfies notability guidelines. Leaving the article in its present form at least allows others to judge with more info. Consensus may decide to keep this article but condense it to a paragraph or two. Please take some time to read the guidelines and policies linked in blue above, as well as Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Cheers, --Animalparty! (talk) 03:57, 1 February 2018 (UTC)


 * @--Animalparty! I've asked multiple times for edits to be made on an unbiased behalf, yet you decided to put this up for deletion without making the edits requested. I would go and do it, however, you contradicted yourself when you brought this up previously. Which is it? Can I edit myself or leave it unbiased? I even changed my username to appease you.


 * Furthermore, being nominated is much different than winning. I can't speak for others who have an Emmy, but I can mention many other people in film and television who have not won ANY awards yet, have wikipedia articles based on very small projects. Doesnt make sense, but it seems like you enjoy escalating this to a point where you want this deleted.


 * A key grip is a union worker and not considered talent within the film industry. Again, your making judgement calls for things you really know nothing about (IE: my other works and awards).


 * Youre not the first person to diminish my accomplishments and career. Doesnt bother me. The sources are there and credible. If you want to be petty, go ahead. This is the last time I will ask for the edits to be made or let me edit it myself. I'm really tired of going around and around about this. Ive tried to be cooperative and patient, but now I'm just annoyed that you're bullying me and singling me out. Best of luck Jwl220d (talk) 04:08, 1 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment/question. Here's a randomly chosen section (originally three paragraphs):


 *  In 2015, Lee partnered with world-renowned photographer, Annie Leibovitz and UBS to brand the Women’s project - a worldwide exhibition visiting 10 global cities showcasing the work of Annie Leibovitz with influential women across the world. The exhibition featured a discussion, ‘Women for Women’, hosted by Annie Leibovitz and Gloria Steinem . &para; Featuring portraits of Hillary Clinton, Michelle Obama, Meryl Streep, Queen Elizabeth II, Adele, Venus and Serena Williams, and many others. The exhibition featured work spanning 20 years of Leibovitz’s career photographing influential and inspirational women . &para; Lee worked on the campaign to execute the branding, collateral and artwork used for the exhibitions across the world. 


 * The warning flags aren't mine. But I wouldn't argue with their deployment: I clicked on each link and in neither of the pages they pointed to did my browser detect the string "lee". Is his involvement something that comes up in the videos? (My browser won't play any of these.)


 * This looks to me like flimflam. I'm most willing to be persuaded that (A) I'm missing something in it; and no, Lee made an important and verifiable contribution to this exhibition. Alternatively, that (B) oopsie, yes, it is flimflam, but that it and every other dodgy part of this article has been deleted and that what remains verifiably shows that Lee is a person of encyclopedic significance. -- Hoary (talk) 05:33, 1 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Those flags would be mine. I watched every single video, hoping there was something there, but... nothing. I also went through and deleted a bunch of entirely unsourced claims - All of the sources that mention Lee's presence are other user-edited sources. For instance, there was an album he supposedly did art for, and to source this he cited Discogs. I checked the album's actual credits on bandcamp, and... everyone else credited on Discogs was there but him. I've been avoiding wasting too much time trying to verify this one, but... it is looking more and more like flimflam the deeper I dive into it. -- Thanks, Alfie. talk to me &#124; contribs 14:44, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * A key grip is a union worker and not considered talent within the film industry. Again, your making judgement calls for things you really know nothing about (IE: my other works and awards). is pretty silly and meaningless because this is an encyclopedia and we rely verifiability, not truth. CHRISSY MAD  ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  15:01, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

104.163.148.25 (talk) 16:41, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete and Salt. Google news, book and web searches return zero reliable sources.Not a notable individual by WP:GNG standards. The article subject himself says "I hope that you would not delete this page as if you do, I will have my agent or lawyer repost this information", so it seems like much time will be saved by salting the article as well.
 * Also note that the awards from "Interactive Media Awards" are ultra-flim-flam, basically a pay-to-play awards site that will give you an award for $195. Removed. Here's a list of the 2011 "outstanding achievement" recipients, including the previously cited 2011 award for the Disney check-in site. I had no idea people would pay for junk awards like this. Easy money. 104.163.148.25 (talk) 16:53, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Let's not go overboard here. First, like it or not, it is normal to be charged to enter a competition that, in principle, many people may enter. (However, $195 does seem a lot.) Secondly, this does seem to be a competition. This means that the $195 payment is necessary but in itself not sufficient. So to talk of "a pay-to-play awards site that will give you an award for $195" is misleading at best. OTOH, perhaps I've overlooked something and the website is indeed straightforwardly selling "awards": but if so, do please point me and others to the evidence for this. -- Hoary (talk) 03:06, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Hoary, have a look at their search page. There are over 100 categories that one can enter. In each category, a winner gets a "best in class" award; the rest get "outstanding achievement. Everyone gets a web page with a certificate. They also say you can suggest new categories if you do not see one that applies to your work. They are not trying to be very selective; rather they are trying to collect as much in application fees as possible. At best this is a very low-quality industry award, but I see it as a junk pay to play award based on the above.104.163.148.25 (talk) 04:52, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It is standard to pay for every award entry. Even the major ones such as Emmy, Oscar, Cannes Lion, Tony, Grammy. Not unusual at all. Salting this article is not the goal. If the Emmy is the only thing that stands, why can't this be edited down to show that? I've asked many times here. My point about "I hope that you would not delete this page as if you do, I will have my agent or lawyer repost this information" is that I was threatened for deletion about notability that is throughout Wikipedia with similar awards. The call to question was that it was a Conflict of Interest and my statement was that I could have someone else of importance verify the validity. Jwl220d (talk) 04:49, 2 February 2018 (UTC)


 * IP, please remain civil, and don't bite newcomers. --Animalparty! (talk) 04:00, 2 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete no notability in reliable secondary sources; I concur with all points made by the nominator and the other delete votes above. Rockypedia (talk) 20:05, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Jwl220d (talk) I see that there have been many edits since this discussion. Is the current state of the article still up for deletion? It appears that it has been edited down to relevant sources that are in line with Wikipedia guidelines. Thank you. Jwl220d (talk) 05:33, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, this discussion will go for 7 days, or longer if consensus is not reached by them. Also, please only sign your comments/place your name at the end of a comment, otherwise it looks like you are addressing yourself. --Animalparty! (talk) 06:35, 2 February 2018 (UTC)


 * delete not named in Emmy award and fails WP:GNG. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 17:13, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

BillHPike - What? Where do you see I am not named? I'm literally looking at the statue with my name on it right now in my office. Jwl220d (talk) 23:19, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * You're probably tired of this by now, but that is not a reliable source. Fortunately for you, this is. -- Thanks, Alfie. talk to me &#124; contribs 00:30, 6 February 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alfie (talk • contribs)


 * 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.