Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Gazecki


 * 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 keep. Clear consensus that available sourcing is adequate to meet the WP:GNG, and also that the subject meets at least one secondary notability guideline. Early closure (nomination withdrawn). (non-admin closure) VQuakr (talk) 22:37, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

William Gazecki

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This person appears to fail all the criteria at the relevant notability guideline, WP:CREATIVE. All reliable mentions I found online (and that are existing in the article are about Waco: The Rules of Engagement, not the director, and notability is not inherited. VQuakr (talk) 06:43, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. VQuakr (talk) 06:43, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:38, 28 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep. Documentary Oscar nomination is documented, and there's coverage in the NYT, among others. WP:BEFORE was not performed. Best, PK650 (talk) 21:46, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * which of the criteria at WP:SK are you citing? What notability guideline references award nominations? You linked a trivial mention of the subject; have you found any significant coverage that would meet WP:BASIC? VQuakr (talk) 21:58, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Criterion 3 of SK. Are you aware of notability guidelines at all? WP:ANYBIO and WP:ARTIST should be educational, for starters. The NYT article is not trivial coverage, and you'll find that Criterion 3 of WP:CREATIVE specifies multiple independent reviews specifically. Here's another significant review for you, and another one, not to mention print sources such as . Finally, if you're not convinced, there's WP:ENT too. Work he's been directly involved with (as sound editor and director, no less!) has received an Emmy and been nominated for an Oscar. Oh and I just saw he received an Emmy in 1982, and has been nominated 3 other times! So who are you kidding? PK650 (talk) 22:14, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * My nomination makes it clear that I read the article in question. Your SK !vote is frivolous. Your links are reviews of (or in the GBooks case, a 24-page pamphlet containing a single-sentence mention of) his work; they are not about Gazecki and contain no biographical information about him except that he directed these works. This discussion is about a biography. To repeat, have you found any significant coverage that would meet WP:BASIC? VQuakr (talk) 02:34, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Buddy: my observations above were clear, concise, and entirely policy based. If you can't admit you were wrong then kindly wait for other editors' comments. This is not the only AfD I'm currently participating in, nor do I have anything to add. Please don't take !votes personally; plus I highly recommend you refrain from assuming emotional editing from my part. If you continue to deny several Emmy nominations, an Academy Award nomination, an Emmy Award, not to mention SIGCOV (a simple search in print and online yields many sources, quite a few of which are good quality), you simply appear to be at fault in nominating, and I was therefore not mistaken in deeming WP:BEFORE was disregarded. Thanks, PK650 (talk) 03:17, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * SIGCOV totally exists, you just can't be bothered to produce any examples of it. Got it. I am happy to be proven incorrect; identification of better sources to rescue the article is the best possible outcome of an AfD. So far, you haven't cited anything I didn't review prior to making the nomination. VQuakr (talk) 03:37, 30 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete nomination for an award does not make someone notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:47, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * He won an Emmy, had nominations for 3 others and an Oscar (WP:ANYBIO c. #1: "has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times"), and has significant reviews of his work per c. #3 & 4 of WP:CREATIVE: "the person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of...multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". Clearly notable. Best, PK650 (talk) 21:23, 30 January 2020 (UTC)


 *  Delete barring PK650 (or anyone else) putting their money where their mouth is and producing sources specifically about Gazecki that aren't just name-drops, scandal rags, or interviews. You claim you have responsive sources, PK650, onus is on you (as the one making the Keep argument) to produce them. —A little blue Bori  v^_^v  Onward to 2020 22:45, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * See below. Thanks, PK650 (talk) 00:29, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * With sources now provided and in the article, Keep. —A little blue Bori  v^_^v  Onward to 2020 21:14, 31 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:FILMMAKER #3 since he has three films that have each been reviewed multiple times. While he was nominated for only one Academy Award, per WP:ANYBIO #1, the multiple Emmy nominations are also another reason to keep the article. Furthermore, Coast to Coast AM provided a biography of him here, and Film Threat has a piece focusing on him here. However, since he is not "popular", care should be taken to ensure that the article does not turn into a puff piece about him. For example, I would put the festival award mentions at the article for Waco and create The Outrageous Sophie Tucker so the review snippets could go there instead of being in his biography. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 23:42, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * (Multiple Emmy nominations and an actual win) I agree with Erik re the snippets. I added them merely because people seemed to ignore that there actually were reviews in existence. The NYT, LA Times, and HR are not trivial reviews per WP:RSP, and that's just for the 2014 film (Roger Ebert reviewed the 1997 one, among others including the NYT again). I think one of the main problems here is both the fact that these awards/nominations occurred several years ago (and the online sources prejudice that exists on Wikipedia), compounded by the fact this person was involved in sound editing as well as directing, which is a role that often goes unnoticed. There's probably quite a bit of coverage from the 80s in newspapers, given most I can personally find are substantital bits in books such as . PK650 (talk) 00:17, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't mention the Emmy win because it's not "a well-known and significant award of honor", being a Creative Arts Emmy Award as opposed to a Primetime Emmy Award or Daytime Emmy Award, which are the most-covered ones. Furthermore, sound mixing may be too niche to have contemporary coverage (especially from the 1980s) replicated to be readily available online. It may be that print publications about sound mixing have covered Gazecki, and we don't have visibility into these. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 01:00, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree. PK650 (talk) 01:44, 31 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment. Wgazecki has left an extensive statement on my talk page today. I've just encouraged him to join the discussion here, and have warned him not to edit the article himself. PK650 (talk) 02:05, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't realize that the filmmaker himself had edited the article, but I'm not surprised. While it had been cleaned up, the current version struck me as having a sense of having been originally written with a promotional tone. It seems necessary to simplify the article further, to drop everything unsourced and perhaps have a pre-career "Background" section and a "Career" section, a more condensed filmography, and a distinct and referenced "Accolades" section. It seems like the article Lucy Walker (director) warrants an examination too. Red flags for me are a lack of a person infobox (which to me means that it has likely been overlooked by editors who make improvement rounds), a lot of biographical information for someone not that famous, and an extremely indiscriminate list of awards. It's not an example anyone should be following. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 03:56, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, the perennial problem of autobiographical promotional editing. I do wish everyone would stick to stuff they're not involved with...but then again it's Hollywood and one can't expect too much of an ethical side, eh? PK650 (talk) 04:06, 31 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep we now have enough sources to justify the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:00, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per Erik, it didn't take me long to just clean up parts of the article and add some references. I think he's done enough to have an article per the sources and awards LADY LOTUS • TALK 15:20, 31 January 2020 (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.