Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bryan Earl Kreutz

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. Seems to be consensus that the sources provided do not provide notability. ansh666 18:47, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Bryan Earl Kreutz

Bryan Earl Kreutz (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)

Article previously deleted via AFD under slightly different title, sourced mainly to unreliable sources (references do not mention article subject) for an actor whose supposedly most recognizable role is in a film that has not been released. Appears to be WP:TOOSOON. reddogsix (talk) 03:44, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

• Delete - while the page creator is now citing IMDb as saying that the film was released January 1st, that doesn't a) make it true in any meaningful sense; b) make the film actually notable. And given that as of over a month after its release, Rotten Tomatoes has literally zero reviews of it, doesn't even know it exists, it's rather hard to claim that it's notable when it has not been noted, much less that this particular performance was notable. Other content doesn't add up to much. --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:48, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

• Dispute Delete - The subject of the actor Bryan Earl Kreutz has been discussed in depth by independent, reliable sources. Significant coverage of the actor Bryan Earl Kreutz meets notability guidelines with multiple independent news referenced sources that have been added as footnotes within the article. Furthermore these discuss the actor/producer Kreutz in this article in depth and by independent, reliable sources. Moreover these reliable sources include mainstream newspapers and magazines written and clearly visible with the editor of the newspaper or magazine article present. Since this 2nd AfD was placed on the article, even more improvements have been made. I’ve also added 2x references for verification including Don Burnett an Indie Fest USA award winner produces festival film nominee in 2013 with Bryan Kreutz. His Biography that is independent from the subject of the article provides reference of Bryan Kreutz as a notable co-producer in 2012. Additionally I added the actor Bryan Kreutz participating in the Celebrity orange carpet event Multiple Sclerosis (MS) 3rd annual walk in Los Angeles, CA in March 2016 alongside other Hollywood stars. I’ve added footnotes to the Bryan Earl Kreutz article and other Wikipedia users have edited the page, even since the article was nominated for AfD. There have been verified reviews of the page with only one additional editor adding aWP:TOOSOON. This WP:TOOSOON has since been proven to be incorrect as there are now two sources showing the actors notable film release date of 1-1-18. The referenced sources, many of which are independent sources, are not articles written by the topic or paid for by the topic. Also below is an additional source (Official Interview a Monster film Website- trailer showing the release date of 1-1-18 for the film at the end for this talk page discussion. URL to trailer from Interview a monster official website: http://www.interviewamonster.com/videos/trailer.mp4 The aforementioned independent reliable sources and in depth subject matter of the actor effectively meets the guidelines of notability, not just a basis of 1 mention for notability that is being questioned by the nominator of this subject for deletion. --Techform (talk) 23:24, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - The article lacks in-depth, non-trivial support. The majority of references are single line entries; however, there are a number of references that fail to even mention the article subject, plus one press release. The couple that come close to being in-depth appear to be provided by the author, so they lack independence. His participation in the movie Interview a Monster is limited as evidenced by his be listed as 15th in the credits. "Participating in the Celebrity orange carpet event Multiple Sclerosis (MS) 3rd annual walk in Los Angeles, CA in March 2016 alongside other Hollywood stars" has no bearing on notability - notability is not inherited from other subjects. BTW - A trailer is not an in-depth, non-trivial support. What does, "There have been verified reviews of the page" mean? The subject is still WP:TOOSOON. reddogsix (talk) 00:31, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
• Okay, let's take a look at each reference used.

1. St Louis Post Dispatch, perhaps the best source used, tells us little about Kreutz other than that he worked on the project under discussion.
2. Pr.com - press release, which does zero for notability.
3. Doncaster Free Press - zero mention of Kreutz
4. Daily Mail - zero mention of Kreutz. Also, under WP:DAILYMAIL, we are forbidden from using this source on biographies of living persons.
5. bryankreutz77.webs.com appears to be a website controlled by Kreutz, and thus not a third-party source. Does nothing for notability.
6. the Independent (UK) - does not mention Kreutz
7. phttp://old.mandy.com/home.cfm?c=bur456 Mandy.com] - someone's ressume, and thus neither a reliable source nor an indication of notability
8. Play Channel Magazine - what appears to be a local interview magazine, article written by one of the actors on the show being covered. As such, not a third-party source.
9. Inside St.L - one-sentence mention of Kreutz.
10. Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry - one-sentence mention
11. [TH Agency] - presumably, the subject's agent, and thus not a third-party source
12. Beaufort County Now - content provided by TheMovieDB.org, which is a user-edited site and thus not a reliable source.
13. HNA.com - a database and thus not a source of notability.

...and the remaining seem to be databases, and thus not an indication of notability, or seem to have the same biography as his agent, which suggests not a third-party composition. There is no "there" there. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:35, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

• Request for clarification - @Techform: I note your comment that "Kreutz has been discussed in depth by independent, reliable sources", but I cannot identify them. From the comments above, I am not alone in this difficulty. It would help the discussion if you list what you consider to be, say, your top three sources. Independent, reliable sources that discuss him in depth. Instead of just claiming that they exist, please list the very best ones here. --Gronk Oz (talk) 01:41, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 18:31, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 05:01, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 05:01, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

References

By Leah Williams - Centralia Morning Sentinel:

By By Teri Maddox - News-Democrat BND.com

By Kim Robertson - Imperial Leader news 1st of 2 pages

By Kim Robertson - Imperial Leader news 2nd of 2 pages

Hi, I appreciate the opportunity here from several parties reviewing for further discussion and the acknowledging of St.Louis post Dispatch as a good article reference on Bryan Kreutz. Also among the other references that are mentioning his name and even continuing on stories about his works. I took a good look at the refs and don't fully agree on your comments by minimizing Kreutz by just name mentions when there are indeed further reading mentioning him by the first name Bryan and related work. Here are my comments in the order they appear for the requested 3 additional references below.

Ref	Comments
1 Williams, Leah.	Has some references to Bryan Kreutz and is adequate to source for referencing.
2 "Living articles about food home & travel from in Belleville, IL - BND.com Belleville News-Democrat"	This article, archived from BND.com is actually about Bryan Kreutz in detail.
3 Robertson, Kim.	This article, archived from Arnold Imperial Leader is also about Bryan Kreutz in detail.
4 Robertson, Kim	(This is a second page; continuing to the Arnold Imperial Leader above.

Techform (talk) 11:47, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

• We cannot use articles from "intensefaceboss.webs.com" as linked sources, both because they appear to be copyright violations and we avoid pointing people toward copyright violations, and because there is no reason to assume that they haven't been altered from their sources. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:49, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
• Delete. Self serving spam bombarded with dud sources. He lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 23:19, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

• Response for clarification I've placed a call and e-mail to each of the aforementioned women editors who wrote the articles in the last reference list. I'm respectfully asking the group to standby for the editors return replies and due process to supply these articles from their original source once they're placed back on the respective websites as archived independent newspaper sources. The goal here is to remain objective sticking to the facts, rather than stooping down to anything subjective with feelings and emotion from additional Wikipedia users to chime in out of a request.

Techform (talk) 03:24, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

• Even with those sources, that would appear to be very local press, "local boy makes good" stories, which carry limited weight. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:48, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

• Delete A non-notable and minor show business figure. I see no significant coverage of him in independent, reliable sources. A role in a non-notable, unreviewed film contributes nothing to notability. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:53, 21 February 2018 (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.