Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Ardaji


 * 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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:36, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Paul Ardaji

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:GNG due to lack of RS sources. Few RS sources mention him briefly. John Jaffar Janardan (talk) 10:29, 21 August 2016 (UTC) striking sockpuppet Atlantic306 (talk) 04:10, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 13:46, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 13:46, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 13:46, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 13:46, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete. Pernom. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 10:37, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete by all means, because as "informative" and "sourced" this may be, nothing actually amounts to substance. SwisterTwister   talk  06:08, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep as Ali meets the WP:CREATIVE exception. As mentioned above, many of the page sources don't do much more than reference him briefly, however the rights acquisition and film production credit are substantial. Will defer to other editors on removal of these. Burroughs&#39;10 (talk) 19:37, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete -- strictly a vanity page. Being a producer (money man) for a famous movie does not make the producer notable, as notability is not inherited. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:39, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Subject has been profiled by The New York Times for ad agency work in the 1980s. Also found in Google News search — "Dedicated to the Greatest" - Greenwich Times feature on life and career leading up to production role in Ali, references to role in Muhammad Ali's contract for life story as well as articles about restaurants since the mid-2000s. News Team   Assemble! [talk?] 15:42, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 01:53, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Original nomination stems from a sock with an inaccurate reasoning. Ardaji easily passes both WP:GNG (3 different NYT articles, LAT, TIME on page). Via Factiva: "Local Looks For Knockout With 'Ali'. Sourcing usage as is is iffy at best, but there's plenty to pull from articles on databases about his background pre-2001. Tangledupinbleu chs (talk) 09:31, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment — Below are some non-digital newspaper articles I did not include in the initial references. I'm confused because the reason was crossed out — here are those reliable sources. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7TAmmons1974 (talk) 02:27, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Given the dual Keep assertions that have no opposition, re-listing for more eyes. Lourdes 03:58, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes  03:58, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete The NYTimes reference quotes him - it is more about the company. The other references I see mention him in brief. The sources from Greenwich or business journals are unfortunately not reliable enough for GNG purposes due to the fact that they easily publish promotional material. If the subject is well known for the movie, it essentially makes this a WP:BIO1E. I don't see any other compelling reason to see that the subject is notable and neither do I see enough coverage. Accordingly delete. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:43, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * 1984 New York Times both quotes subject and refers to throughout as it details a background on him and the company. A 1979 New York Times article is a feature story solely about the subject. With the ad agency information, this is not WP:BIO1E. I also don't see any evidence that Greenwich Time is not reliable / easily published promotional material. It's a legitimate newspaper with an author byline. Proposals calling for the mentions to be scaled down, I concur that it's excessive — references 12-25 need a further look. News Team   Assemble! [talk?] 12:51, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * 1979 New York Times is not a profile article entirely on the subject. It is just a small mention among a collection of 6 other news. The 1984 NYTimes article as I told you is mostly quotes - hardly any coverage about the subject. None of this is useful for notability per WP:WHYN. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:59, 20 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - If we started excluding newspapers "prone to publishing promotional material," then we might as well cut out basically all of them, and every music review site on the planet as well :) What matters is that the source isn't a blog or a tabloid, and has an editor/journalist who can arguably be considered neutral. So most trade publications pass fine in that regard, if they have at least some non-local repute. So I agree with the sourcing found by News Team in this case. Yvarta (talk) 14:31, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete, not notable, only normal business activities. There is not even an article on his business and only has a brief mention in the Masaharu Morimoto article. A WP:BIO1E, at best. Kierzek (talk) 14:05, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. I'm amazed at the NYTimes coverage, which includes the paragraph "The American Aisociation of Advertising Agencies has on a number of occasions recommended MEAMCO to member agencies and reports complete satisfaction. "his is writing suitable for an advertorial, not objective reporting. It does not matter where published, surch sourcing is not reliable for notability of for anything else. It bears out the general principle, that there is no source at all that is always reliable for everything.  DGG ( talk ) 05:05, 18 September 2016 (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.