Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Putnam


 * 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 as follows: (and sorry for the length, this one was not easy) If we count !votes, there is not a clear consensus to keep or delete.

But we don't count votes, we evaluate the notability and other factors of the subject as made in the keep and delete arguments presented. On review there is not an overwhelming argument here that outweighs all the rest. Some points:
 * The main keep arguments advanced by several are that this director has transferrable notability from having directed The Hottie and the Nottie which is notable for being viewed as so dreadful by many that it received extensive coverage, and for having been a Paris Hilton vehicle. Almost all the keeps advance this argument. FreeKresge advances the argument that notability of this BLP is also conferred by the filmmakermagazine.com articles.
 * The primary delete arguments advanced are that the film's notability does not necessarily transfer directly to the director (this argument was also advanced in deletion arguments of other film industry folk, such as Don Murphy), that the article was initially written by the subject, that there has been significant addition of material that is attack in nature, which we have not always rapidly kept out of the article, doing harm to the subject, that the material in the article is not well sourced (and that sources do not exist), and that in general, the subject does not pass the WP:BIO for entertainers threshold.
 * It's clearly established that notability is not directly transferrable. The film is marginally notable (it gets much of its notability from Ms. Hilton, truth be told) and thus doesn't have much (I tend to use an informal 10% transferrence) spare notability to transfer to the director.
 * The filmmakermagazine.com articles are reviews/summaries of the events of the year, and they are not primarily biographies of this subject, who gets a few paragraphs of mention in passing, and who is not given a full biographical treatment in them. We have in the past viewed that mere mention of someone in an article does not convey a large amount of notability. Further, the source website itself is not exactly a first tier source for the industry, as I understand it, the way that say, Variety is.
 * The article being originally written by the subject is not prima facie a reason to delete, as long as our conflict of interest policy is followed. It's certainly not evidence of a wide interest in maintaining the article to a high standard, though.
 * In reviewing the "Creative professionals" section of WP:BIO for entertainers, the subject fails every test.... (reproduced in italics for reference, with explanation after)
 * The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors. No such evidence offered. This person is early in their career.
 * The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique. No significant new concepts on offer (making a widely viewed as remarkably bad movie with limited box office is, regrettably, not a "new" concept!).
 * The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. No such body of work yet exists, and no such biography or book has been produced, nor is Tom a subject of multiple articles (mention in passing does not count)
 * The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums, or had works in many significant libraries. Not yet. (again, a stinker isn't a monument... too many of those!)

On balance, evaluating all of the sources of notability, and being extremely charitable in doing so, the subject is very very marginally notable. In view of the poor sourcing of the article, the unlikeliness of better sources appearing in future, absent some other activity, and the tendency of the article to carry attack material for periods of time, and in view of our mandate to do no harm, and that having no article at all is better than having an article that cannot be improved, and the emerging consensus that we should delete marginal notability BLPs absent a clear and compelling consensus to keep, this is a delete. There may be some slight material that can be smerged to the various film articles (contact me for a copy of the deleted article) and the deletion is without prejudice (in view of the fast moving nature of the film industry, in which Tom Putnam may well do something highly significant, or be biographically profiled in future) to a future recreation if there is a significant increase in notability and in independent sources. ++Lar: t/c 19:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Tom_Putnam
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This page has had recurring unverifiable unreferenced negative and libelous information added about the subject who is a living person - for example see entry 21:05 on 16 July 2007 from IP address 216.101.81.4 Shibano100 (talk)
 * Unverifiable info can be easily removed without an AfD discussion ever coming into play. Either way, I'm leaning towards weak delete right now, becuase I don't see any notability for this person – no reliable sources, no notable works, etc. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 21:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. The Hottie and the Nottie makes him notable, whether or not the other works do.   Corvus cornix  talk  22:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per above, the movie he directed makes him notable. Atyndall93  |  talk  09:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment if being the director of the "worst film of all time" (The Hottie and the Nottie) is what makes him notable than it needs to be referenced in the article, sourced to a reliable 3rd party and, the article kept. If his notability can not be presented in the body of the article (without turning it into an "attack page") than the article needs to be deleted. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep I do not think that directing The Hottie and the Nottie alone makes him notable, but the Filmmaker Magazine links probably push him across the notability line, barely.  I am not thrilled with the fact that the article was created by User:Tomputnam, but I do not think that is a reason for deletion in this case.  If the insertion of libel and unsourced negative information is a problem, then protection is a better solution than deletion.--FreeKresge (talk) 16:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * P.S. Those who believe that directing a poorly received film is a notability criterion can look at the IMDb’s bottom 100.


 * Delete I originally found this page and thought it was worthy of deletion through the imdb entry for the film that some of the users above have commented on being the reason to keep the page.  The source for the Worst Film of All-Time ranking is the imdb voting, and if you look on the imdb page for The Hottie and the Nottie and read the comments you will see that many more people have voted on the film than actually saw it and that the Worst Film ranking is in doubt so I think this entry, which is the sole reason this person would be notable, is not credible.  I also agree that the creation of the page by user:tomputnam is dubious as well.--shibano100 (talk) 13:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * My comment is based on the notability of the film, not on its perceived awfulness. It starred Paris Hilton, thus the film, whether it wins a Razzie or an Oscar, is notable, therefore the film's director is notable.   Corvus cornix  talk  20:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Notability is not inherited, and even if it were, it is most certainly not transitive. If a film is notable only for the inclusion of a star then we can only make a very week case for the notability of the director of that film independent from its star.  This guy has to be notable on his own. Protonk (talk) 18:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete I disagree that the hottie and the nottie makes this guy notable. For one thing, the only two attributes making that movie marginally notable are Paris Hilton and the ignominious nature of its release.  WP:BIO for entertainers has a threshold this guy doesn't meet.  Also, the Hottie and the Nottie can hardly be called a feature film, as it only showed on 111 screens domestically. Protonk (talk) 21:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete I agree with the previous two postings that a poorly-received film that hardly anyone saw does not make him notable. Also none of the other information is verified and appears to have been posted by Tom Puttnam himself (or someone claiming to be him).  Additionally, in checking the history of the page there have been some unverifiable and obviously intentionally negative information posted which would lead me to believe that, if it wasn't created by the subject, this may have been created as an attack page.   JDijul (talk) 6:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as the person is evidently notable as a film director/producer. (jarbarf) (talk) 21:02, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Just because someone has directed a film doesn't make them notable. This person does not appear to meet the Wikipedia threshold for notability.    (rip n pull) (talk) 14:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rip N Pull (talk • contribs)
 * Keep. Director of dreadful film which received extensive independent press coverage. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 02:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete I do not believe this person is notable enough to be a Wiki entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rfourriel (talk • contribs) 19:23, 30 April 2008 (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.