Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seth Morgan Romero


 * 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 consensus appears unequivocal.  DGG ( talk ) 22:27, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Seth Morgan Romero

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Contested prod. Filmmaker/self-published author of questionable notability. Google news search on "Seth Morgan Romero" shows zero results. Standard search shows a lot of simple directory mentions (due to minor roles in legitimate productions) and social media links - no significant coverage of the subject found in independent reliable sources. MikeWazowski (talk) 19:17, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * There are reliable pictures of Seth Morgan Romero - the first being of him having dinner, third to the bottom of him with Jeff Bridges. This page should NOT be up for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malvinworks (talk • contribs) — Malvinworks (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Photographs are not an indication of notability - especially when that photo comes from the subject's Google+ account, which is not a reliable source. MikeWazowski (talk) 21:39, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I do not understand where your personal vendetta against this individual comes from. This particular individual is now signed with WME agency, is directing a feature film (which is being released early 2013) and has done a lot to help individual filmmakers. The least he deserves is this page on Wikipedia. I've seen individual pages with less credibility. Could you please explain why this page NEEDS to be deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malvinworks (talk • contribs) — Malvinworks (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * There is no personal vendetta - just a standard AfD based on an apparent lack of notability shown in the article. Of the five references you've currently provided in the article, three are from unreliable sources: Romero's personal Facebook and Tumblr pages, and his IMDB profile. Of the Amazon refs, one links to an out-of-print self-published pamphlet (not much of a case for notability there), and the other I added a failed verification tag to, as it has no mention of Romero. No one "deserves" a Wikipedia page - as to other pages, I'd suggest you read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If this person truly is as notable as you believe, surely you can provide links to significant coverage from independent reliable sources that back that up? MikeWazowski (talk) 22:27, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The Facebook link is not Seth Morgan Romero's own Facebook (he does not have a Facebook or has it listed under another name). The Facebook Link is of 'The Other Night', the official fan page for the film. If you want an independent source that credits Seth Morgan (one that's not IMDB), I have a link from an independent film blog 'CGI Films', which talks about Seth Morgan's upcoming project reliable, independent source. --User:OmniWorldMan (talk) — OmniWorldMan (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * The Out Of Print book is no "pamphlet". Only 150 copies were produced and they're very rare. I don't understand why you've being rude. I just want help to making this article thrive, but you're not helping, you're just attempting to delete it. I'm asking for help, which you're not giving me. --Malvinworks (talk) 23:05, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Malvinworks, I'm trying to correct the page "Seth Morgan Romero", so that it will not be flagged for deletion.-- OmniWorldMan (talk) 23:11, 28 February 2012 (UTC) — OmniWorldMan (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * MikeWazowski, I've corrected some sources and cleaned up a bit. This article should not be a problem anymore. Actually, you cited one of the references, stating it wasn't correct. In given reference #5, it does state the chart number, release date and that the album did, in fact, receive a 4 1/2 star voting average. This page shouldn't be anymore of an issue. I think you could take the deletion notice down when you please. --OmniWorldMan (talk) 04:25, 29 February 2012 (UTC) — OmniWorldMan (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Your cleanup consisted of posting a copyvio from another website. So no, I believe I will let the AfD run its proper course. MikeWazowski (talk) 04:58, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I always have to fix things. Don't worry User:MikeWazowski, I'll clean the page up and rid it of the issues previous users have gotten it into.--MaxMagnum1991 (talk) 05:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC) — MaxMagnum1991 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment Just to let OmniWorldMan know, facebook is generally not usable as a source. What this means is that at the very absolute most it is usable as a primary source if you can guarantee that it is by Romero and even then you can only use it when the material it's referencing is backed up by multiple independent and reliable sources. In other words, you should have so many independent and reliable sources that using any sort of primary source is unnecessary. Also, primary sources never show notability. It could be a picture of Romero eating dinner with President Obama and Queen Elizabeth, but it still wouldn't show notability because primary sources cannot be used as reliable sources showing notability.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:13, 29 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79
 * I understand your argument, but Romero's page is still enough for a Wiki page. The Google Trends for his book have upped to nearing 400 in volume index after his book went Out of Print (though that information was omitted from the Wikipedia Page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaxMagnum1991 (talk • contribs) 08:06, 29 February 2012 (UTC)  — MaxMagnum1991 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * The only thing you should be careful about is that Google Trends probably falls under the guidelines for WP:GOOGLEHITS in that it doesn't matter how many hits you get back in a Google search- Google results do not show notability. Specific links that are considered independent and reliable sources does, and that's ultimately what an AfD comes down to. I also want to note that when I searched under Romero's name and the book's name at Google Trends, I did not get any results back at all. You might be able to find enough sources to show that his self-published book is notable, but that doesn't necessarily mean that he himself has notability outside of the book. Writing a book, working behind a camera, and doing a few roles does not automatically give notability. Rather than saying "he/she/it has google hits under this search or another", you need to be finding reliable sources that pass WP:RS and show notability. A large amount of google hits only means that searching for reliable sources might be easier, not that they're guaranteed to have enough notability to pass the very strict guidelines here on Wikipedia.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:29, 29 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79
 * Comment. I also want to stress that it's possible, but unlikely for Romero's self-published book to have enough sources to show notability. (ArtWay was founded by Romero and his book on Amazon is published through CreateSpace, usually a dead giveaway that books are self-published.) I am going to try my hardest to look for sources, but please be aware that publishing, filming, and acting is not an automatic notability guarantee. I also have to ask, are either you or OmniWorldMan related in any fashion to Romero? I ask because if so, you should read over WP:COI. There's nothing against the rules about editing and creating an article about yourself, someone you work for, or someone you know, but you should be careful because it's so easy to overestimate someone's notability because you're personally invested in this person and might see notability where there isn't any.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:34, 29 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79


 * Comment: I have found information that suggests that Malvinworks is either Romero or directly represents him by way of a link that redirected to an IMDB post where the new screen name is "sethmorganworks" and the profile is Romero's.  I want to stress again that if you are a friend, relative, agent, employee, Romero himself, or have a personal stake in Romero's success, PLEASE make sure to be honest about it. Again, you can edit an article about Romero but you should be up front about your relationship with him because it might be a conflict of interest. I'm not trying to be the bad guy, but you've got to understand that it doesn't exactly look good when you have many accounts suddenly sign up only to edit or defend this article. Please look over WP:COI.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79
 * Delete. I've looked pretty hard, going under a number of different variations on Romero's name. There's just no reliable sources out there and none of the sources on the article are considered to be reliable sources that show notability. I want to stress that I'm not doing this because I suspect that the contributors to the article are Romero and his friends or because I have any sort of vendetta against anyone. I don't actually enjoy voting "delete" on articles and would much rather have things kept on Wikipedia than deleted. It's just that in order to be kept articles MUST have reliable sources that pass WP:RS and there must be enough of them to show that Romero passes WP:ENTERTAINER or WP:BIO, which he doesn't, despite his accomplishments. While I wish him well and hope that he does get this notability in the future (thus getting to laugh on E! about how his wiki entry was deleted back in 2012), he doesn't have it now and saying that he might achieve notability with his next film is just WP:CRYSTAL and we can't keep articles because someone might become notable one day.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:56, 29 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79
 * Comment: I'm not malvinworks, but a source close and reliable to him. I'm an assistant at Constance Productions. We're working on maintaining Wiki articles not only on Seth Morgan, but other sources pertaining the company. We've had many notable pages created.--OmniWorldMan (talk) 09:57, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It's now been confirmed that Malvinworks, OmniWorldMan, and MaxMagnum1991 are being run by the same person. I'm not really surprised, but it's nice to have confirmation. MikeWazowski (talk) 14:58, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment:: Also, there's nothing for us to "gain" for the creation of the Seth Morgan Romero. We're simply creating the page as a collective of information. I'm not sure whether or not Mr.Romero cares for these "pages" like the one here in Wiki or IMDb, because his real connections are in the industry, where it matters, but when a person searches his name, his book, his album or any of his films, the simple Wikipedia page would tell a person so much about it. I don't see anything wrong with that.--OmniWorldMan (talk) 10:04, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. Due to your involved nature with the company and Romero, I highly highly HIGHLY suggest that you look into getting someone from WikiProject Film to help you with creating articles. One of the things about adding pages for your company and the people you represent is that it can be seen as being an advertisement or promotional attempt. Even if this wasn't the intent, this is how it is interpreted 99.9% of the time, especially when you have people and items that do not pass Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Wikipedia is a source of information, but the information has to pass the notability guidelines. It's discouraged for someone to edit an article that they're closely related to, but when it comes down to a representative for a company editing articles it is even more highly discouraged. I'm trying to stress this because most of the time a person editing something they're closely related to is viewed in a highly negative light, which is why it's so discouraged. You could have the best intentions in the world and do the most neutral and unbiased edits in the world, but it is always going to be viewed in a potentially negative light. I'm not trying to completely discourage you from adding to articles or requesting that articles be created, just warning you that it would probably be better if you went through one of the experienced users at the movie wikiproject. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:39, 29 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79
 * Also, please do not remove the COI tag from the article. It doesn't mean anything automatically bad, just that one or many of the major editors to the article are personally involved with the subject.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:46, 29 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79


 * Delete - fails WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. After cutting through all the COI and marketing nonsense, the subject just isn't notable for Wikipedia purposes. ukexpat (talk) 13:55, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - I spent some time this morning trying as hard as I could to find any reliable sources for this article whatsoever, and there really were none that would establish notability as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Without reliable sources to establish notability, there is no reason to not delete this article.  -Aaron Booth (talk) 17:54, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - There's no need for the article. While the information is correct, there are not enough relevant sources.--Sethmorganworks (talk) 03:32, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - The guy is nothing more than a non-notable blogger with a pretension to filmmaking, who has come here under various socks for the purposes of WP:AUTO and WP:ADVERT. Qworty (talk) 04:37, 2 March 2012 (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.