Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Greisen


 * 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. Discounting the recently-created accounts and IP addresses as evident vested interests, there is consensus to delete. Just in case, I have checked the version of the article on 9 August 2012 as suggested below, to see if it might invalidate the policy-based claims below. In my judgement, those policy problems are clearly present then also, so the deletion consensus established here is suitable. -Splash - tk 22:41, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Steve Greisen

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Horrible puff piece of minor -- at best -- media entrepreneur. Indistinguishable from spam, really. Calton | Talk 00:55, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Deletion criteria should be whether the subject is or is not notable, not how well the article is written. The article could certainly be written better, but the subject is an award-winning Christian filmmaker http://www.christiancinema.com/catalog/newsdesk_info.php?newsdesk_id=418# and is notable. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:06, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You apparently have some difficulty with the meaning of "puff piece" and "puffery". Hint 1: it's not about writing style -- though you seem to have been, long-term, quite happy with this ad-copy-disguised-as-an-encyclopedia-article -- but with exaggerated claims and claims unsupported by actual facts. Hint 2: engaging in further puffery -- like the meaningless-on-it's-own adjective "award-winning" -- is not really helping your case. --Calton | Talk 02:04, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep I propose that the article is kept. As Walter Görlitz says, Greisen is a notable person.  However, I also propose that the page is reverted to a previous version; the current version is simply an advertisement for Reel Productions.  The previous version was an encyclopedic biography of Steve Greisen. --GreatAwk (talk) 16:16, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Could you please identify a previous version that you believe to be encyclopedic, so that others can evaluate it. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:29, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Anything on or before 9 August 2012. These versions are at least unbiased, which cannot be said for the current version. GreatAwk (talk) 23:10, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * And keep the picture. Agree about how the content has become much more of a fluff piece in recent months though. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:16, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed, the pictures should be kept. Also agreed, the piece has become more "fluff" in recent months...I was already unhappy about some of the (likely true but) uncited facts of Greisen's life.  If the wording was changed, it would help (for example, changing "versatile and accomplished screenwriter..." and "Greisen’s brazen, entrepreneurial marketing mind..." to something a little less biased). GreatAwk (talk) 16:26, 23 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 22 October 2012 (UTC)


 * KeepAs someone who actually knows and has worked with Steve Greisen I wonder how someone completely unknown to the subject of an article can claim it to be spam. Mr. Greisen is well known in the industry he is in:  http://www.christiancinema.com/catalog/newsdesk_info.php?newsdesk_id=418, http://www.matthewward.com/closingbook.html, http://www.fandango.com/stevegreisen/overview/p625094, http://www.rottentomatoes.com/celebrity/steve_greisen/, http://www.imdb.com/name/nm4237126/. If there aren't enough references there let me know. Previously this article was written by someone unknown to Mr. Greisen and was based on vague truths, it appears to be updated with factual information and it's deemed as a "puff piece?"  Mr. Greisen's "award winning" (let me again reference those since they were obviously missed by a self-appointed-authority that didn't bother to read the Awards or References sections:  http://www.reelproductions.net/awards/) is something I've personally been witness to.  There is nothing on this page that cannot be researched and it's validity found out.  Perhaps a review of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion should be made, with attention to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not and specifically "Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing."  If a personal story and success is thought puffed up it would appear that this is an argument from a "soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda" and is not being used in the proper context.  I would like to know what specific claims Calton deems are "exaggerated claims and claims unsupported by actual facts." This is no more a puff piece or advertising than http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Spielberg.TheNewAmanda (talk) 22:27, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not about whether you know a person. It's about unbiased, verifiable information.  Therefore, while I agree with you that it's a good thing to have less "vague truths", as you call them, I feel the article needs to not sound like an advertisement, which it does right now.  If the article could be written in an unbiased, clearly cited manner (without most references directed to Greisen's personal websites), this would likely be acceptable to the Wikipedia community. GreatAwk (talk) 23:10, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You are right. Aside from my own personal knowledge I still have to say this article is by all accounts correct, correctly cited, and if Wikipedia doesn't like personal sites then they should probably not have any personal information on here.  Let me rephrase "vague truths" to say that there were outright inaccuracies that were actually cited according to Wikipedia standards.  The article here is factually based and, although cited by some of Steve Greisen's personal work, is true. http://www.encyclo.co.uk/define/Steve%20Greisen http://www.tellyawards.com/silver/club/members/?single=1&id=9545  My suggestion is that the article include a few more of these citations.


 * KeepThe entire article written about Steve Greisen is as unbiased as any other page referencing a notable person, as well appropriately verifiable within the context of the article and where it is being cited. The previous page also linked to his personal website, removing this article wouldn't change those references.  The article shows a correct picture of a filmmaker that is clearly cited.  If the Wikipedia community doesn't approve of citing someone with their own work then there would not be a single article about anyone on here.75.71.51.230 (talk) 04:17, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  TruPepitoM  Talk To Me  13:07, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Delete as non-notable (doesn't seem to meet either WP:GNG or WP:FILMMAKER) unless more and better sources can be found to establish notability. Most of the current references are highly dodgy (indeed, one of them is another Wikipedia article!) and the couple that seem more acceptable don't establish significant independent third-party coverage. If kept the article should likely be rewritten from scratch... Sideways713 (talk) 16:11, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 00:19, 29 October 2012 (UTC)




 * Delete - pure promo-spam supported by "references" from the subject's company website and supported here by WP:ILIKEIT and WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments from WP:SPAs. Very little significant coverage in reliable sources from what I can see. If we removed the peacock language and the non-independent "references" the article would be almost blank. Reads like a resume. Stalwart 111  (talk) 06:34, 29 October 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.