Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Gilbert (2nd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 16:06, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Gilbert[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Alex Gilbert (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable cinematographer. Almost none of the references are independent and the story of meeting his parents is covered by WP:BLP1E. Cinematographers can be notable (see Category:New Zealand cinematographers) but this is judged by independent references and awards; these people also tend to be late-career professionals, not three years in. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:23, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I see links to a book have been added. The best URL for this is https://itunes.apple.com/nz/book/my-russian-side/id857509909?mt=11 which makes it clear that it's self published. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:20, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Notablity is not only only because of him being a cinematographer. In addition, he is equally if not more notable because of his origin as a Russian boy adopted by a New Zealand family and how his story attracted public attention at length and led to serious discussion about adoptions and search for one's origins. It became subject of an auto-documentary broadcast on NZ media as well and helped others start a quest to find their own birth parents. Keep. werldwayd (talk) 20:33, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Clearly another attempt at self-promotion which, IMO, violates COI. Multiple citations give the impression of WP:N. Take out the cites which fail RS and those which are self-published and the remainder seems trivial on the whole. This person may be slightly interesting, but that does not equal notable (in the general, not wiki, sense at least). DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 08:15, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've removed the most obvious RS failures (Twitter and Facebook and IMDB when used as a biographical source). I suspect there are more...DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 08:27, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, WP:BLP1E and fails WP:GNG. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:32, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 05:02, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The source http://www.nzherald.co.nz/lifestyle/news/article.cfm?c_id=6&objectid=11232549 is not reliable; it's an interview-based puff piece. Most of the article is directly attributed to the subject and there is no sign of any independent journalistic research or critical evaluation of what the subject is saying. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:14, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That you think a puff piece while it passes the notabilty obviously, how much do you know about the news field, it is very common to ask the readers to contribute their writings, photos and etc. It is your personal view and opinion that does not require for the rules of wikipedia, how can you say electronic media is not a reliable source, that are all third party sources. What you mention WP:BLP1E, please read it again with more much care--the subject passes general notability as well. What do you mean no sign of any independent journalistic research??!!. The interview is taken by a journalist who is the reporter of the newspaper, take a look at these--- [1], [2], [3], [4], please read that thoroughly, may you understand the fairness. I am very sorry to say that I doubt your request of proposed deletion of the article while you have even not taken a look thoroughly at the newspaper and its credibility. I hope this helps you to be fair and constructive.Justice007 (talk) 22:12, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I do think that's a reliable source, but a single reliable source doesn't ensure that a subject is notable; WP:GNG seeks significant coverage from multiple independent reliable sources, and even that only grants a presumption of notability, to be considered along with other guidelines such as those dealing with single events. Agyle (talk) 21:32, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Surely an Articles for Deletion nomination shouldn't take this long to resolve? It is clearly notable. This was nominated on the 19th of June. --122.57.251.189 (talk) 04:20, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It takes as long as it takes. Three relistings is not uncommon if there's ongoing discussion. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:51, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SpinningSpark 17:48, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hello Solarral. The NZ herald is the most circulated newspaper on NZ. Which that source on his page is reliable. Also TVNZ is the biggest TV network in nz which is also a reliable source. He is also the main subject on both of these sources. --DmitryPopovRU (talk) 07:14, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Gilbert is a non-notable cinematographer. After cutting out all the notability-irrelevant sources we are left with a New Zealand TV documentary and subsequent New Zealand newspaper coverage of his meeting with his birth mother in Russia. Frankly, TV makes these kind of documentaries all the time with fly-on-the-wall following of adopted children, homeless people, drug addicts, victims of scams, families on benefit etc etc etc. To my mind this kind of thing falls under WP:NOTNEWS. The subjects of this kind of coverage have no ongoing notabiity. The only difference in this case is that the subject has written a book and has some aptitude for self-publicity. SpinningSpark 09:19, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. All three criteria for WP:BLP1E seem to be met, which suggests "we should generally avoid having an article" on such a subject. The claim of notability is based on Gilbert being the subject of a TV news piece and an article about his finding his birth parents. The amount and duration of coverage were limited, and fall short of establishing Gilbert as an ongoing notable individual. Another point brought up is he wrote an autobiography, but this was self-published, and while it may be interesting it is not indicative of notability. ––Agyle (talk) 21:32, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I really neither hesitate to express my view towards the wiki-rules nor bother how one contributes. If there is lack of description in the exact concept of the notability, I see there is no any medician yet to avoid "voting" that must be accepted.Justice007 (talk) 16:36, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You and I hope this changes your minds wherever you are in the world. --122.57.251.189 (talk) 21:16, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alex_Gilbert_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1068822256"