Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David S. Womack

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. Tone 16:35, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

David S. Womack[edit]

[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)

Highly advertorialized article about a film director, not properly sourced as passing our notability criteria for filmmakers. As always, every filmmaker is not automatically entitled to have a Wikipedia article just because he exists -- the notability test requires certain objective markers of achievement, such as notable awards and/or the reception of enough coverage in reliable source media outlets independent of himself, to establish that his work has been externally validated as significant by anybody besides his own public relations agent. But three of the five footnotes shown here are IMDB, a YouTube video, and his own book's buy-it page on Amazon -- and even the two "media" hits are still not actually real journalism, but just two separate reprints of the same Q&A interview, in which he's talking about his own work in the first person, and they're also both explicitly labelled as "Sponsored Advertising Content". All of which means that none of them are reliable or notability-supporting sources at all -- and furthermore, I also had to strip the article of a large profusion of WP:ELNO violating offsite links to more Amazon pages, Facebook posts, and other pages that still aren't reliable or notability-supporting sources either. As always, people do not get into Wikipedia by creating their own sources themselves so that the article is technically "verified" -- notability is not a question of what the article says he did, it's a question of how much attention has or hasn't been independently paid to the things he did by journalists in real media.
I can't prove it outright, but from what I see here I'd be extremely surprised if this isn't conflict of interest editing by the subject himself or a personal friend, colleague or relative of his. Bearcat (talk) 01:47, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 01:47, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 01:47, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This page is based on true facts. Do not delete. Cited, paragraphed and verified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lastphotograph (talk • contribs) — Lastphotograph (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete: No indication of notability, sources are promotional content. ... discospinster _talk 03:04, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:38, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:39, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. (edit conflict × 1) The first two references are completely the same (so count as one) and are WP:interviews, the last three references are WP:user-generated content, so all source are likely WP:unreliable. Apart from that, a large part of the article is hardly WP:verifiable due to the lack of inline citations (and likely references). A WP:before search with "David S. Womack" produces few results that can be used as references, while "David Womack" yields some result but about unrelated people with the name "David Womack". ~ Ase1este_{charge-parity}^time 05:50, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an overly promotional article on a non-notable person.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:36, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sources updated. Thanks for the heads up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lastphotograph (talk • contribs) 19:17, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, possibly Speedy delete as spam. Per nom , apparent WP:COI. WP:TOOSOON. 2601:188:180:B8E0:15C4:2E2D:8425:5AA9 (talk) 17:23, 19 February 2021 (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.