Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam Edwards (poet, writer & independent film producer)


 * 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. DGG has voted twice but the overall argument that this is someone inadequately sourced hasn't been disputed and SNGs justified articles for BLPs where a decent search for sourcing has failed to turn up enough contradict BLP and a meta consensus on the requirement to source BLPs. Spartaz Humbug! 04:13, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Sam Edwards (poet, writer & independent film producer)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Promotional article on a writer of questionable notability. As most claims are related to her film company, a Google search on "Sam Edwards" "Ragged Crow" shows only 68 unique results, none from independent reliable sources - mostly blogs, social media, or simple listings. Article appears to have been created/edited by a pair of SPAs doing nothing but creating promotional articles for Ragged Crow films, its principals, and its projects. MikeWazowski (talk) 15:21, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Sam Edwards is listed on IMDb as a writer of several short films and the sole writer of Stealing Elvis... Her poetry has been published on secondary sites, such as Plectrum, TCP which is an independently produced webzine and magazine quite apart from anything that Ragged Crow does...  Her writing, particularly her poetry has an big underground following in London. It is important to list underground writers alongside more conventional ones in Wikipedia, so that the encyclopedia has a wide scope for the things that people want to look up... I understand that articles in Wikipedia should not be for promotional purposes, but if people are looking things up on IMDb (an organisation quite apart from Ragged Crow), then surely they can expect to have them ratified on Wikipedia...  Again, I would question the use of google as the strongest method of verification, as it throws up differing results according to user preferences...  --Seditonary (talk) 15:45, 23 October 2011 (UTC)Seditionary — Seditonary (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Great. Show us some independent, reliable, 2ndard sources commenting on any of what you claim. EEng (talk) 16:13, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 21:04, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. We don't include everyone from IMDb, not by a long shot. Edwards' film credits are all for short films except Stealing Elvis, which has an estimated budget of £5000. None have attracted much attention; Elvis has gotten the most IMDb votes, nine, which is fewer than the number of cast members. The writing is similarly unreviewed. I recommend Afd'ing Stealing Elvis too. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:50, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Being on IMDb isn't an automatic sign of notability and I wasn't able to find any sources on the internet. Most of what I did find wasn't what wikipedia considers to be a reliable source. It was also pretty difficult to find references for the movie as well. Unless there are sources available now, there's no reason to keep this. Also, it should be noted that reliable sources does not include playbills, brief listings in the news, or anything that could be seen as promotional or put out by the company/person/representative themselves. Tokyogirl79 (talk)tokyogirl79

Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedic platform that "anyone can edit, use, modify and distribute", isn't it? (- Wikipedia: Five Pillars). A platform that does not "apply hard and fast rules" (- Wikipedia: Policies and Guidelines). Sam Edwards has a four year history of writing and producing short films, that have screened at reputable festivals, and has written and produced a feature, which might be considered noteworthy precisely because it was produced for £5 grand for 7 days of filming - cross ref with other films that are notable for their achievement despite low budgets such as The Blair Witch Project. Sam Edwards has also written a novel and poetry, which has been published and reviewed, both in poetry magazines and on the internet (which have been cited)... I am a new contributor and understand that I might be met with with certain suspicion, but is this a case of "bite the newbie"? Many articles in Wikipedia must have had lowly beginnings. I am not saying that this article is full and complete, but I do reiterate that it is a decent enough starting off point for a subject that can be expanded upon... From an acorn does an oak grow... And I do believe that aspiring film-makers are interested to know about Sam Edwards as a screenwriter and producer, as are the people who follow her as a poet and novelist, and that they would be interested in a brief article about her on Wikipedia... If in the future Sam Edwards proves to do nothing more than she has already, then of course this should be reviewed. But Wikipedia (Five Pillars) encourages contributors to "be bold" (but not reckless) and as such I think this article should be given a chance - and when more citations and references become available, I will add them... I might even find that other contributors are interested enough to do likewise.

As another addendum, perhaps the title of the article comes across as being a little grandiose - but there were other Sam Edwardses, a physicist, and an actor who was in Little House on the Prairie... and I wanted to distinguish her from them - perhaps calling the article Sam Edwards (producer) or Sam Edwards (III) or (X) as she is listed on IMDb. Or Sam (Middle Initial) Edwards (apologies don't know what her middle initial is) would be better... --Seditonary (talk) 09:32, 26 October 2011 (UTC) — Gene93k (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * More like "bite the SPA." Could you please just, as requested, point to an applicable notability guideline, together with the sources that satisfy it? EEng (talk) 21:59, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep – Promotional, yes, but there are sources that show that this person is notable. Article should be retitled to Sam Edwards (filmmaker) Inter rest (talk) 20:48, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I repeat: can someone point to a notability guideline, together with sources on the subject that satisfy that guideline? EEng (talk) 18:49, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:CREATIVE.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 05:39, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep on the straightforward basis of having written a notable film, with some additional notability from the poetry.   DGG ( talk ) 03:58, 31 October 2011 (UTC).
 * WP:NOTINHERITED EEng (talk) 18:49, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:VAGUEWAVE. The essay NOTINHERTITED is set more to deal with relationships between people and does not overrule the guideline WP:CREATIVE which is set to deal with the results of creative efforts, when SIGCOV is not met. IE: verifiable involvement in the creation of notable works DOES impart notability.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 05:34, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep per User:DGG. Yes, the article is promotional in nature and needs a lot of work, but I see something salvageable here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trusilver (talk • contribs)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, causa sui (talk) 21:32, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - sources insufficient to sustain notability. Neutralitytalk 16:38, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete I've reviewed the sources and looked for others. Nowhere near notable under any guideline I can think of.  EEng (talk) 18:51, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I can think of notability guideline WP:CREATIVE... which deals with notability in cases where SIGCOV is lacking. That notability guideline indicates that verifiable involvement in the creation of notable works DOES impart notability.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 05:34, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete I am not seeing the sources which meet WP:V. The claim for notability is association with a notable film, and even if it were sourced this does not meet WP:N because notability is not inherited from association with a notable project.  There is an assertion that this is also a published author but there are no reviews.  The best sources for this are blog-style independent reviews.   Blue Rasberry    (talk)   18:53, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Incorrect. Read WP:CREATIVE. Verifiable involvement in the creation of notable works does impart notability.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 05:34, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You're both right. CREATIVE specifies, "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". So the article's subject need not have significant coverage on her own, but the work must be (a) significant or well-known and (b) have been the subject of etc etc.  (a) is a big vague, but have we got (b) for Stealing Elvis?  I haven't found it.  EEng (talk) 10:20, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Verifiable involvement in the creation of notable works shows notability. Meets WP:CREATIVE, and as article issues are addressable, deletion is not a mandate. Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 05:34, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:CREATIVE in my view. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:32, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete I am reluctant to differ from MQS in this subject, but the notability of his only possibly notable  work is based entirely on a quotation "what Ragged Crow have managed to achieve is commendable as it is full of hope and positivity for their future projects" This may be a favourable notice, but only in the sense of what we call NOT YET NOTABLE.  I will also admit to a certain negative view about an obvious coi author who used so expansive and promotional an article title. If kept, it will of course be fixed to show less promotionalism, but it indicates the approach.  DGG ( talk ) 15:03, 7 November 2011 (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.