Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clifford Allan Sullivan

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. The discussion reveals concern about self-promotion, which is not in itself reason for deletion, and notability, which is. The author is encouraged to allow reliable sources to note his work, and a disinterested and unaffiliated party to write about him when they do. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:51, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clifford Allan Sullivan[edit]

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

Self published author/independent filmmaker of questionable notability. No IMDB pages for the films or filmmaker. Google search on "Clifford Allan Sullivan" shows only 94 unique results. Some local news mentions, but no significant coverage from independent reliable sources. MikeWazowski (talk) 02:05, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 02:16, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 02:16, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete appears to fail WP:GNG by a long way. Debutant filmmaker's biography which cited only very local radio coverage, commercial sites. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:57, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It also appears to be an article created in WP:COI. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 15:32, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please Read in Full. Here are the IMDB pages for my films: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2039379/ (and) http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2039381/ Article in Times and Transcript Newspaper: http://timestranscript.canadaeast.com/search/article/1436472 Self published author, not true I have a publishing contract with "Rose Bay Publishing Worldwide". They paid me not the other way around. They paid me a sign on bonus of $40,000. Plus I get paid for every book sold. My book is available in over 190 bookstores. My book in a bookstore near you: http://www.indiebound.org/book/9781456022549 You can order and buy my book on, one of the following bookstore websites or you can visit their local bookstore: http://cliffordallansullivan.webstarts.com/uploads/191_Retail_Bookstores_CAS.pdf Writer cas (talk) 16:22, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(I've returned the comment removed by the article's author,[1] as not imflamatory, cogent to the issue of COI, and editors are quite able to disregard the profferred external links) Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:39, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To User:Writer cas as the article's subject and author and his having commented above: The WP:GNG requires multiple reliable sources speaking about you. The Times & Transcript is a good beginning, and I did find an article in Horror Society, but for notability we need more. I congratulate you on having authored Was It Really Love ISBN 1456022547, and I do not doubt for a moment that the book is available and is being sold on Amazon and others, but for it to be considered toward notability we need reviews and commentary of the book itself in reliable sources. I further congratulate you on your two films. However, they need to be screened at festivals and/or aired on television and THEN be the subject of reviews and commentary in reliable sources. But what is most probematic here though is that WP:SELFPROMOTE strongly discourages editors from writing about themselves and their projects, and the [article's edit history shows that it was written by you and about yourself and your projects. I would usually suggest that permature aricles get userfied back to their authors to await developments, but WP:COI indicates that such would not be for the best. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:55, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete per WP:NotJustYet Nominator User:MikeWazowski did fail partially in his statement, as there ARE IMDb pages for the filmmaker[2] and his films,[3][4] and the problematic use of WP:GHITS is not a strong reason to delete. WP:BIO and WP:GNG do not demand worldwide coverage. And as Times & Transcript IS a reliable source,[5] even if "local" to Canada, we cannot dismiss it, specially as it does speak about the subject directly and in detail, and "local" to Canada is fine for en.Wikipedia. That said though, there are not enough reliable sources available to meet WP:GNG. Because of the author's WP:COI, I ask that whomever closes this, userfy it to me to me at WP:MichaelQSchmidt/sandbox/Clifford Allan Sullivan so I can myself keep a watch eye toward that time in a month or two when a more suitable sourced version might be ready for article space. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:55, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - At the time of the nomination, the IMDB pages did not exist. They apparently went live right when Sullivan posted the link to them thee days later. it's too bad that the IMDB doesn't show date of addition, because all of the pages there related to him have been added since this AfD began - I do not miss or fudge important details like that when nominating articles, Michael... MikeWazowski (talk) 13:18, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, sometimes IMDB film pages DO state when they were last updated... but no, not always, and not in this case. So pardon if I implied lack of diligence, as the films were otherwise sourcable. Please note that I do agree with you that this BLP is WP:TOOSOON. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:29, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete classic example of promotion--not just the article, but the defense of it above, where, the subject could apparently not resist the opportunity to advertise the availability of his book, despite the utter inappropriateness of this forum. I try to not let the behavior of a COI editor influence me in evaluating the article, but this time I think it adds inescapably to the overall impression. DGG ( talk ) 04:54, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. But as he does have a film slated to appear on television, and as it and another are about to begin festival rounds, I am willing as an uninvolved editor to hold this in a sandbox and improve it if better sources come forward after the films get seen. In my hands his self promotion will be removed and the article made properly neutral and encyclopedic. And toward his poor sources and self-promotion, on his talk page I urged that he read Wikipedia:A Primer for newcomers and WP:NAU in order to get some clue. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:43, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note Anonymous IP 69.168.144.136 just decimated the article,[6] removing reliable sources, sourcable content and the AFD template. We don't do that here, even if an article looks to be deleted. I'll go make some repairs, as even if it is to be deleted, editors have the right to judge it as nominated... not as a one-line unsourced stub. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:09, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Addendum I've just performed the promised damage control Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:24, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is the key issue. Things to be completed in the future are not notable. They become notable once completed. --Ryan.germany (talk) 14:27, 7 September 2011 (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.