Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Francis Pollara (2nd nomination)

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. If the author wishes, I will userfy it so that he can work on it in his user space, but I invite him to consider that, if so much effort has not succeeded, the subject is probably in fact not (yet) notable by Wikipedia's standard, and further effort spent trying to make him appear so may simply be wasted - see WP:OVERCOME. JohnCD (talk) 17:03, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Pollara[edit]

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

Second time around, same problems as last time. Speedy nom as recreation of deleted content was declined. This is mostly puffery to make it look like this guy is some big player in the film industry when in fact he is mostly just another member of the crew on most of the projects he's worked on. The sources are mostly YouTube or IMBD, although there's also a high school paper thrown in and a few other sources that are not exactly reliable. I would also like to see the page salted so we don't end up here again in another few months when Mr. Polarra and/or his friends decide to try this again. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: All the references are pages created by the subject of the article. He has worked on noteworthy projects that have wiki pages, but his involvement in those projects was merely as a behind the scenes crew member, which are important but usually not WP:N. Everything he has produced is a youtube video, and the only references he has for these videos are the links to youtube, I don't see nor could I find in a quick Google search any independent news covering these videos. MATThematical (talk) 02:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete: Is there a policy on wikipedia that refuses my right to post an article if I happen to know the person? Also I understand feedback but what good does it do for the wikipedia community to merely shutdown articles you don't want to have posted. I have spent many hours on making this a solid piece with many references and serious data. I mean there are many articles out there that are ridiculous compared to the serious content I am trying to post. And yes its in the eye of the beholder so who is to say people agree with you? Lets take a second to look at previous topics: Delete. Creation of a WP: SPA, not sourced, no reliable sources available. No bias against re-creating in future should source/notablity issues be addressed. --Whoosit (talk) 19:47, 17 October 2009 (UTC) Fixed There is a beginner's guide to properly sourcing your article at WP:REFBEGIN that may be of some use to you. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:08, 17 October 2009 (UTC) Fixed Is IMDB not a reliable source? Johnart111 (talk) 04:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The point you are missing there is the most important one, you need reliable sources. And no, IMBD is not considered one of those, it's content is generated by users, and is often inaccurate. Also, several of the linked entries do not mention Mr. Pollara at all, just like last time. And since you asked, creating articles about people you know is in fact strongly discouraged as you have an obvious conflict of interest in such a situation. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:51, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a perfect example of what's wrong here, you just added a link to [1] to the article. That is a website intended to promote this film, it is not independent from it in any way. And, as if that weren't enough, I don't see any mention of Mr. Pollara on the page. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok that makes sense. In the frenzy of trying to prove everything is true I have posted so many references. And I changed that just because before it was IMDB. But now its completely removed as you mention the site without his name is irrelevant.Johnart111 (talk) 05:25, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to: Everything he has produced is a youtube video, and the only references he has for these videos are the links to youtube, I don't see nor could I find in a quick Google search any independent news covering these videos. MATThematical (talk) 02:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Releasing video content virally is equivalent to it being distributed. In addition I have added links to Future Shorts and Ad World who have written on these productions numerous times. Regardless of the fact that he has won an Emmy. Question: If I have a document in print that seems to be unavailable on the internet but comes from a reliable source like the Television Academy of Arts & Sciences could I simply make it available on the web then reference it as a PDF? If so I can do that as well.

Please Keep: Agreed Francis is not some world renowned cherished man. He is 20 years old but please tell me what you where doing when you were twenty. I am six years older and find his determination not only impressive but inspirational. That is why I reached out to do this in the first place he is unaware of the article actually as I have been attempting to complete it officially. To me his story is an important one and although it seems he hasn't made a huge effort to publicize himself on the web I am working with what I have and I do not agree that because I dont have "links" to share to direct content it makes this article unworthy of being posted. Johnart111 (talk) 05:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per WP:IRS and nom. —Mike Allen 07:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NO! Don't Delete! Johnart111 (talk) 07:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- - 2/0 (cont.) 08:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John, could I ask you to calm down a bit? Yelling "No, Don't" is simply contradiction and does not help your case. Your desire to tell his story to the world is not wrong, you are just directing it towards the wrong place. The purpose of Wikipedia is to share information that has already been published elsewhere in a reliable source. There are other websites, some of which are listed here, that would be happy to help you share his story with the world. Beeblebrox (talk) 08:37, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bee, please don't missinterpret my pleading with you to bother someone else, not yelling. There are plenty of other people on wikipedia that deserve this more than I. This is not a story I concocted. As much as the wikipedia page of other filmmakers is a story of their lives this one follows the same format. These are facts that I have done my best to reference but because there is little content online this article becomes irrelevant. I have references so lets see are there a minimum number of references required per article? If not then I have them. And I will continue to add them accordingly and I will see to it that this article works one way or another. In my opinion you have yet to concretely explain how this article violates Wikipedia policy and requirements.Johnart111 (talk) 09:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried, and I'll try one more time to maker it clear to you. A reliable source for an article like this would be an article in a reputable newspaper, magazine, or website, not a high school newspaper, a website whose content is generated by anonymous users, or a website that is promoting something. Also, these sources need to verify facts related to Mr. Pollara, not simply verify that the projects it is claimed he worked on existed at all. There is not a specific minimum number of references required, but there is a minimum standard of quality and relevance of sources required if the article is to be kept, and so far I'm not seeing such sources. If this gentlemen is such a player in the industry, surely such sources would exist online, but it is not actually required that they be online. If there is a book or print-only magazine or newspaper that has published significant, non-trivial content regarding Mr. Pollara that indicates his notability, that would be fine too. No one is claiming this is a story you made up, just that it does meet the minimum standards to be on Wikipedia regardless of the factual accuracy. Beeblebrox (talk) 09:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Forget it you win. I am exhausted with you and this impossible barrier. I guess it is up to Francis now. He just has to be a bigger "player". Then it will all be gravy. I will be back though. So I hope you enjoyed deleting another article.Johnart111 (talk) 09:27, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's not nice to have to go against such passionate pleas, and I do feel for someone having clearly spent a lot of time working on an article, but I really can't see anything here that's notable by Wikipedia rules. -- Boing! said Zebedee 13:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable, despite the protestations of the author. Only one GNews hit, from a minor, non-reliable source that appears to be a high school paper. No major awards. Being a worker or intern on a major film does not confer notability. (GregJackP (talk) 20:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Delete: To address the life story approach, I would point out that there are many readers and researchers who would be interested the the life story of Stanley Kubrick. But the life story of the subject here is presented in lieu of notability. I don't mean to suggest that only a Kubrick deserves Wikipedia presence. But clearly, in the case of someone who is notable, the scenario can almost write itself based on the notable achievements themselves. Besides, this individual has production assistant credits listed under the cinematographer heading. I don't see a "key" crew listing anywhere. (Rudybowwow (talk) 14:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy back to impassioned author. The article definitely needs a rewrite to eliminate the inclusion of so much background on family and friends, and to make it feel less like a diary page, and the subject may merit inclusion in a year or so. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I added another article. [2]> Can someone verify if this is valid? Then if I find and add more of this to the article could it stay? Johnart111 (talk) 18:44, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I can confirm that it is valid article about the filmmaker in the La Canada Valley Sun, and that it can even be found online. No doubts. But with respects Johnart111, the article is seen as overly long and for the most part improperly sourced. That perception is a big problem, as oftentimes, less is more. If you'd ask to have the article userfied/moved to a user workspace at User:Johnart111/workspace/Francis Pollara, I'd be glad to work with you on triming it, cleaning it up, and working toward giving it its best chance of survival in mainspace. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your response Michael. Unfortunately I am still learning all the wiki editor terms userfy and user space I am not sure their meaning. I assume you mean that within my user talk page I can post the article until it is appropriate and trimmed for mainspace? Thanks again. Johnart111 (talk) 22:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially yes. A workspace can be created by editors as a place where they may create and work on articles until they are better ready to survive in mainspace. You create a page with a title "(Username)/sandbox(or workspace)/(article name)". As soon as you add something to the page and hit save, it will have been created. In this case here, keep track of it being closed and {likely) deleted. Then referring to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Francis Pollara (2nd nomination), ask the closing administrator on his talk page if he would please userfy the article for you. He can then "undelete" it long enough to move the entire article and its editing history into the sandbox or workspace so it might be worked on. I also offer that you might take a look at a page I am myself developing as a primer for new editors at User:MichaelQSchmidt/sandbox/Newcomer's guide to guidelines. Its not complete, but it should help a bit. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't want to sound like a party-pooper, but that looks like a local newspaper - is that really sufficient? -- Boing! said Zebedee 07:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Naw... not a party-pooper. Local individual written about in local news and article not picked up for reprinting in major papers. In determining its validity, I found that the La Canada Valley Sun is part of Tribune Publishing and that it could be pretty much be accepted a reliable in context to what is being sourced,[3] but yes... the article represents just one article from a few years back in a local edition paper with a small circulation. I'm still willing to work with User:Johnart111 is this gets userfied. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thank you very much. I will make sure to do that so I can do all of the above to make this article survive.Johnart111 (talk) 03:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet WP:CREATIVE. Come back when he wins a cinematography Oscar. THF (talk) 05:17, 1 March 2010 (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.