Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Raye Pimentel

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. Stifle (talk) 16:17, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Raye Pimentel[edit]

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

Article CSD:A7'ed numerous times, puppetish new user deleting current CSD. Subject does not seem to pass WP:FILMMAKER and sampled references seem dubious at best (blog posts, etc) ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 06:29, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - NN individual failing WP:42. Should be CSD'd and salted. reddogsix (talk) 15:23, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This person has as much of an importance as some of the other "filmmakers" on wiki. You can research this person on Google and see for yourself. He's on Martin Scorsese's IMDB, Richard Matheson's IMDB and Richard Price's IMDB. Also let's not forget to mention that it clearly states in the Basic Criteria for Notable people on Wikipedia “If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability.” Which I have provided.Monaeface25 (talk) 07:35, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Other stuff exists, just because other articles exist on Wikipedia does not mean this article meets the Wikipedia criteria for inclusion. The existing support is trivial at best. reddogsix (talk) 19:35, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IMDb is no evidence whatever of notability, for two reasons. Firstly, it is not a reliable source, as anyone can submit content. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, it is indiscriminate. Essentially, IMDb aims to be as inclusive as possible, and so it accepts content about virtually anyone who has ever taken any part in making any film, no matter how minor their contribution. Also, I'm afraid you have misunderstood the point of "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability." That means that the total coverage must be substantial, and that a number of moderate-sized bits of coverage may together contribute substantial coverage. It does not mean that large numbers of links to pages that do no more than barely mention the subject are good enough. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:16, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:27, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:28, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Despite the attempt to suggest notability by flooding the article with large numbers of references, there is no significant coverage cited at all. Most of the sources merely list Pimentel's name in one or more credits, or make similar trivial mentions. A few of them don't even mention him at all. Only three of the cited sources gives more than just a mention of his name, and all three of them are clearly promotional sites. There is www.shortfilmcentral.com, which has the self-declared purpose "to help filmmakers promote their short films". There is frankiem.ipower.com, which declares its purpose to be "to Build New Opportunities for Young People", and announces that "The artists selected are the stars of tomorrow being launched today". There is "cineteam.co.uk" which does not, as far as I have been able to find, make any such clear declaration that it exists to promote those whom it lists, but perusal of the site makes it pretty clear that it has user-submitted content for its members to promote themselves. Google searches produce Alexander Raye Pimentel's own web site, IMDb, Facebook, Wikipedia, Vimeo, Linkedin, etc, and again sites that clearly exist for people to use to promote their own work. In short, absolutely no evidence anywhere of coming anywhere near satisfying Wikipedia's notability standards, but plenty of evidence of a concerted effort to get publicity on numerous web sites. (It is clear from the editing history of the creator of this article (including deleted edits) that this Wikipedia article is part of that effort.) JamesBWatson (talk) 13:33, 27 January 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.