Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adrian Țofei (2nd nomination)

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. Consensus is that the available sourcing on the subject doesn't meet our notability guidelines. This doesn't mean the film he is known for making is not notable. Hut 8.5 21:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Țofei[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This was just soft-deleted, then restored. It's pretty obvious the IP behind the article is Țofei himself, a relentless self-promoter based on the number of articles where he's seeded this link. The fact, though, is that at present, his sole claim to notability rests on having directed a single film (itself of uncertain notability); that really doesn't appear enough to satisfy WP:BIO.

Pinging @Somedifferentstuff:, who authored the first nomination. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:02, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The movie's notability hasn't been disputed so far, only Țofei's page. But since he did almost everything on that movie - directing, writing, producing, acting, cinematography, editing, production design, casting, production management, sound, sound editing, color, special effects etc. and a lot of critics praised this achievement (it is actually Romania's first 100% indie/guerrilla feature film), I believe this is also proof of Țofei's notability. I was fascinated myself by the achievement, which is why I tried to contribute as much as possible to both the movie's page and Țofei's page and tag them whenever I saw them mentioned elsewhere. It's odd that this behavior is interpreted as a form of abuse or self-promotion. It is not. I am still searching for more info and references to add to Țofei's page in support of his notability, please don't delete it again. 86.120.254.110 (talk) 16:09, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've added to the page more relevant info and sources in support of notability, compared to what was there when the deletion was requested, and will continue to add more. 86.120.254.110 (talk) 23:54, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've just checked Biruitorul's contributions and looks like he even deleted any mention of Be My Cat: A Film for Anne in the article Cinema of Romania, although the movie is Romania's first found footage horror movie and the first Romanian horror movie to receive international recognition. I've restored that, but all his efforts to remove the movie or the movie's director from Wikipedia look suspicious. 86.120.254.110 (talk) 17:11, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- Yes, I removed it per WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTADVERTISING, and I'll likely remove it again once this discussion closes and you fade away from the project, which you probably will, given that your single purpose here is to promote Țofei and his film. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:09, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - My single purpose here is to contribute objectively to things that I feel passionate about. Please do not manipulate the discussion, I never said that my single purpose is to promote Țofei and his film, I said that I am fascinated by the achievement. There is no conflict of interest in contributing to things that you feel passionate about. And I also contributed to other pages as well, unrelated to Țofei or his movie. 86.120.254.110 (talk) 18:30, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Untrue: whether as 88.237.199.171, 86.120.250.221 or 86.120.254.110, all your contributions deal with Țofei and his little movie. - Biruitorul ^Talk 19:01, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - These were the IPs automatically assigned to me when I contributed to Țofei and his movie. I am not a constant contributor, I contribute to Wikipedia from time to time and when I do so I focus on a subject for a couple of days till I'm satisfied with the quality of the edits. I worked on various other pages in different periods of my life and all kinds of IPs have been assigned each time to me. 86.120.254.110 (talk) 19:37, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I addressed the undelete request to Juliancolton the first time Adrian Țofei was softdeleted. I explained to him in detail on User talk:Juliancolton why Țofei is notable and he restored the page. I need some help here from the Wikipedia community, the second attempt to soft-delete seems strange, to say at least, given all the circumstances and the fact that the user who proposed it went to delete even unquestionable info about Țofei's movie from another page (see the comment above). 86.120.254.110 (talk) 17:29, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- There's nothing "strange" about a renomination under such circumstances. If anything is strange, it's that you haven't disclosed your apparent conflict of interest. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:09, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I cannot have any conflict of interests about Be My Cat being mentioned on Cinema of Romania. I didn't add that paragraph, I've just expanded it. And some minutes ago I actually deleted two festivals because they are not relevant for the movie's international recognition. 86.120.254.110 (talk) 18:30, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've just checked Biruitorul's page again and saw this in his "About me" section: "This user is a patriot who often veers into deranged right-wing nationalism." He is a Romanian, so it's possible that he deleted any mention of Be My Cat: A Film for Anne from Cinema of Romania because the movie is not spoken in Romanian and it's addressed to a Hollywood celebrity, so it's not Romanian enough in his views. If this is true, it makes him biased towards anything related to the production. 86.120.254.110 (talk) 18:41, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, you're way off: I'm actually a filmmaker myself, and Țofei is a rival. My aim is to minimize mention of him throughout the Internet, and hopefully wreck his reputation in the process.
- As for who added that paragraph: another single-purpose IP. Whether or not that was you remains an open question. Registering an account helps dispel these sorts of doubts. - Biruitorul ^Talk 19:01, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, I will consider registering an account from now on to remove any suspicion of single purpose. I contributed to a lot of other pages, but I don't have a static IP, it changes, so it's impossible for me to prove anything. 86.120.254.110 (talk) 19:15, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - it would be helpful if 86.120.254.110 could stop sniping at me and actually stick to the topic at hand, which is whether the subject under discussion is indeed notable. - Biruitorul ^Talk 19:01, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. 86.120.254.110 (talk) 19:15, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article doesn't meet WP:N (just have a look at the sourcing) -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 20:29, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see anything wrong with most of the sources. There are two important awards in two film festivals with international significance (Nashville Film Festival and A Night of Horror International Film Festival in Sydney), three praising reviews/listings in top film sites (Austin Chronicle by a Rotten Tomatoes approved critic, Dread Central and Blumhouse) and multiple other interviews in film sites where Țofei is praised for his revolutionary approach on the found footage concept. And there is much more relevant info on the internet which is not yet added - you can find a lot of those sources listed on Be My Cat: A Film for Anne. 86.120.254.110 (talk) 12:44, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article builds too much on the websites on Tofei and his film. We need 3rd party coverage of Tofei that is in depth about him, and the article does not show such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:21, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- According to Wikipedia's guidelines for articles without independent/third party sources, the article should not be deleted yet, but instead kept in an imperfect state and use the talk page to ask help with third party sources. There is no talk page and no proof that the community made any significant efforts to find third party sources, so the page should be given this chance until being proposed for deletion again. And also take into consideration that it's disputable whether there are currently no third parties at all, since some of the sources do not mention only direct reviews and critical opinions of the critic who wrote the article, they also contain a general analysis of the status of Țofei in the film world based on all the praise he received in the film community. 86.120.254.110 (talk) 09:14, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Needs independent secondary or tertiary sources, which I can't find any. The sources all rely on his film(s) one way or another. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 23:07, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Most contemporary filmmakers on Wikipedia have only sources based on their films in one way or another, and they are accepted as secondary sources. It would be extremely hard to find a source about a filmmaker (even top filmmaker) that no one could accuse of being based on his films. 86.120.254.110 (talk) 08:44, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 7 May 2017 (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.