Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eddie Zajdel

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. At the moment, this article is simply too soon. I would not be opposed to its recreation given time and on the condition that there be suitable sources at said time to demonstrate adequate notability per the relevant notability guideline(s). TheSandDoctor ^Talk 17:56, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie Zajdel

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

WP:BLP of a film director, whose claims to notability are referenced entirely to junk sourcing. The references here include IMDb (three times), Instagram posts (twice), a YouTube video, his own self-published website, a directory listing of his record as a baseball player at the high school level, and a piece of user-generated content on medium.com -- none of which are reliable or notability-supporting sources. And of the two sources that actually represent media coverage, both are covering him solely in the context of building stuff in his back yard when he was a teenager, and even one of those is just a short bit about him in the editor's letter on the masthead page of a minor special-interest magazine, not substantive coverage about him in a major media outlet. So these sources are failing right across the board to make him notable enough for a Wikipedia article -- it's 80 per cent sources that can't support notability at all, and 20 per cent sources that aren't covering him in a noteworthy context. Bearcat (talk) 21:18, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:41, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:41, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:41, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

THIS ARTICLE DOES NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS FOR DELETION — Preceding unsigned comment added by MatthewFayer (talk • contribs) 15:50, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This editor who is proposing the deletion of this article believes he or she has significant points, except for the fact that they are entirely bias. He or she begins the dispute using the term "Junk Sourcing" which is a personal stance taken entirely from the opinion of this editor, with no given points. This editor took very little time to truly assess what these sources are, and the reason why these sources were used.

This editor begins by addressing issues from a personal standpoint, not reading the articles and leaving out the bigger picture. The editor proposing the deletion quotes "a directory listing of his record as a baseball player at the high school level" In the article this source, in no way was referring to the notability of this individual as baseball player, but rather further sourcing that this individual "graduated from Canton High School".

Another quote from the editor "just a short bit about him in the editor's letter on the masthead page of a minor special-interest magazine" again this source was not in any way intended to reference his notability of a director, but further establishing that he did indeed have a passion for art and creation at a young age.

The editor also quotes "it's 80 per cent sources that can't support notability at all, and 20 per cent sources that aren't covering him in a noteworthy context" This editor is taking the amount of sources listed and using that to determine "without even reading them" that they are not credible.

There are countless number or wikipedia pages that establish notability using 3 or less articles including IMDb and online publications. This article just happens to use 11 of them to further establish the notability of every sentence in the bio.

I am not claiming this individual to be Steven Spielberg, however Eddie Zajdel is known for what he does in the film industry. This article is explaining in an unbiased way who Eddie Zajdel is and what he has done. This clearly fits the requirement for Wikipedia. This article uses 11 sources to insure the notably of every word written in the article.

Wikipedia quotes "sources may encompass published works in any form and media, and in any language" just because this editor in his or her opinion dislikes the articles used to determine notability, does not mean in any way that they do not establish notability. This editors proposed deletion article was poorly written with no concept, which demonstrates to me that he or she did not take the time to look deeper into the reasons these sources were used, and the true concept of this page.

This article is not the strongest article ever created on Wikipedia, but just because an editor briefly reads the article, reads none of the sources, makes irrelavent points personally assessing this individual, and fails to take the time to look deeper into the reasons why they were used is not in ANY WAY a reason for an article to be deleted.

MatthewFayer (talk) 15:48, 2 November 2018 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: MatthewFayer (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

References for the notability of a person must be reliable source coverage in media, such as newspapers or magazines or books, which represent editorial content about him by people other than himself, and which are covering him in the context of the thing that's being claimed as his reason for having an encyclopedia article. A person's notability cannot be stacked onto directories like IMDb or a high school sports database, or their own self-published websites or social networking accounts — and if the reason why he "should" have a Wikipedia article is that he makes films, then human interest coverage which supports where he went to high school but says nothing whatsoever about his work as a filmmaker does not constitute support for notability either. The rule is not that a person automatically qualifies to have a Wikipedia article as long as the things it says are referenced just anywhere — only certain specific types of sources count as valid support for a person's notability, and none of the references here are the correct kind. Bearcat (talk) 20:29, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:Too soon Rmhermen (talk) 06:34, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete social media user generated content and youtube are not RS. Way too soon. --Dom from Paris (talk) 19:10, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable coverage from secondary sources, fails WP:GNG. Not notable yet. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 00:42, 10 November 2018 (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.