Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Randazzo

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Deleting this walled garden per WP:CSD criteria A7 and G11, noting in passing WP:NPOV, WP:COI, WP:VAIN, WP:AUTO, WP:V, WP:RS and probably half a dozen other good reasons why the subject should not have re-created this twice-deleted article. Guy (Help!) 22:21, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Randazzo[edit]

Joe Randazzo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

JRandazzo created Joe Randazzo which is an obvious conflict of interest as it is autobiographical. Beyond that, he also created Vincent Zambrano and Jose Patino...the two others with whom he made the non-notable short film The Last Request. He also created David Forsyth one of the actors from this short film. The film claims notability based on winning second place in a tiny L.A. horror film fesitval, Shriekfest...a festival so small it has exactly three staff members [1]. IrishGuy talk 02:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the reasons outlines above:

IrishGuy talk 02:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am adding La Arana as it is yet another new article about these same people. IrishGuy talk 18:20, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all per nom, also suggest addition of Shriekfest to this AfD, the aforementioned film festival. Article forms part of walled garden with the other co-noms, no sources and was created by User:Jrandazzofilms. Deizio talk 02:15, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Added Shriekfest. IrishGuy talk 02:18, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. Unsourced, non-notable walled garden. -- Kicking222 02:29, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of fact, Irishguy seems to be targeting me specifically, even going into pages such as William Malone's to check my additions.

JRandazzo 02:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC) Joe Randazzo[reply]

It takes very little to be listed on IMDB and the only real credits are for this one short film. That isn't notability. I looked at your additions to find other pages created about this same subject in doing so, I cleaned up the William Malone article. Also, as a minor detail...your account JRandazzo didn't edit William Malone, Jrandazzofilms did. Are you admitting that you are using multiple accounts to edit Wikipedia? IrishGuy talk 02:57, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I also have an IMDb listing. That does not make me sufficiently notable. That does not imply that multiple reliable sources have talked about me at length. That does not give me the grounds for writing a Wikipedia article about myself. -- Kicking222 03:00, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (EC) As listings can be bought on IMDb and content written by those directly concerned with or connected to the subject of articles, it is not considered a reliable primary source, rather it can act as a guide to the body of work of an actor, film company etc. The policies and guidelines that should be considered here include WP:V, WP:BIO and WP:CORP. Given the topics at hand here it appears Irishguy has simply conducted research to help make a decision about the AfD listing, unless you have more specific evidence that he is "targeting you specifically"? Deizio talk 03:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is deliberate misinformation. Listings can not be "bought" on IMDB. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JRandazzo (talk • contribs) 03:08, 23 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
    • It does not take "very little" to be listed on IMDB. I have worked for years and only two films of which I made a significant contribution are listed. And if being listed on IMDB is so easy, then what is wikipedia? A site where ANYONE can edit a page? IMDB is widely considered a reliable resource for the film industry.

As far as I know, I had been using the same account all along. If I am using two accounts, then they both belong to the same e-mail... sly devil that I am, I surely would do this intentionally as I wouldn't expect to be caught. JRandazzo 03:12, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • It appears you are correct and I have been using 2 names. Wow. So, can I delete one or am I banned for life? JRandazzo 03:15, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is a resume, not a listing. Not the same thing. JRandazzo 03:18, 23 December 2006 (UTC) ADDED COMMENT: And by the way, again, you are attempting to deliberately provide misinformation.[reply]
  • Comment "Get your own IMDb page" is the first service offered on that page. Joe, the content policies and standards at Wikipedia can be confusing for the uninitiated, please don't think you're being singled out. If you check out the highlighted links (WP:V etc. and also WP:RS) above you'll discover more. IMDb, like Wikipedia, is a tertiary source, and Wikipedia generally aims to gather material from primary and secondary sources. Deizio talk 03:25, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • And in case no one noticed, I have many more works on my IMDB resume than on my IMDB listing, which disproves the previous assertion that it is easy to have your work listed. JRandazzo 03:21, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, three other listings (one of which is an extra) hardly counts as "many more works". No offense, but it appears that you are using Wikipedia to pad out your resume. IrishGuy talk 09:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Care to actually read what I wrote? What I stated clearly is that there are titles on my resume which do not qualify for IMDB, so the claim that any title is eligible is a joke. No offense, but can you read something and try to comprehend before you reply? JRandazzo 17:57, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and WP:COI. Danny Lilithborne 03:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - unsourced autobiographies and walled garden of non-notable stuff. MER-C 04:09, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per MER-C. On a side note, I do consider IMDb a reasonably reliable source since all database content is supposed to be reviewed by editors before appearing on the site. However, appearing on IMDb does not automatically indicate notability under WP:BIO. --Metropolitan90 05:16, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. We prefer being nice to newcomers, but we have an obligation to assess articles per our guidelines and policies. IMDB is a source, but it is not by itself sufficient proof of notability under the Wikipedia guideline for biographies. --Dhartung | Talk 07:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and SALT. How many times does the Joe Randazzo article have to be deleted before this guy gets a clue that this garbage isn't wanted here? Maddy626 08:52, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Salt; babies who serve as living props can have an IMdb page! Notable, nope! SkierRMH 10:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No one ever said that being on IMDB in and of itself qualifies me to have an article about me. Because that would mean anyone who got someone coffee on the set of "G-String Divas" would qualify. But if a film or TV series is listed, then it is notable because not every film or TV series qualifies to be listed. Also, a film festival that is listed on IMDB and is recognized by industry professionals as a major festival is also notable. There are plenty of festivals whose awards are not recognized by IMDB, just as there are thousands of films not recognized. As a matter of fact, one of the qualifications your film must pass is that it has been screened to a wide audience via a major film festival and winning said festival is notable. JRandazzo 15:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would imagine most regular visitors to this page are well aware that IMDb's criteria and practices are shrouded in mystery, hence the reason many Wikipedia editors are reluctant to trust it as a source when considering the notability of relatively unknown people, films and companies. Unlike Wikipedia which has very clear, prominent explanations and definitions of it's standards for inclusion, IMDb does not reveal any specifics, and has I believe been criticized for this approach. Joe, if you wish to save these articles your only option is to demonstrate compliance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. "WE ARE ON IMDB! IMDB SAY WE ARE NOTABLE!" will not suffice, no matter how long and loud you scream it. Deizio talk 16:06, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would say that IMDb's eligibility criteria are at least as objective as Wikipedia's, and probably more consistently administered. See the IMDb eligibility rules here. Note that the film festival provision says "accepted and shown on film festivals that don't accept everything regardless of its quality", not "screened to a wide audience via a major film festival". --Metropolitan90 16:20, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well than, in light of my mistake about IMDB's policy, this would make my film and page more noteworthy than I previously thought. Thank you. JRandazzo 16:28, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, I never said that my just being listed on IMDB makes me notable. My ex g/f is on IMDB, she's never done anything above extra work and she definately is not notable. But if a festival or film is recognized, that is notable. And yes, I am relatively unknown, but I will bet that there are many people who are relatively unknown that you can not easily discredit as "not notable." Michael Tadross' name is relatively unknown, yet he has produced Hitch, Tony 'n' Tina's Wedding, Die Hard 3, The Devil's Advocate among other films. Winning a major festival is a notable achievement. JRandazzo 16:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yet another IMDb related comment that does not address Wikipedia policies or guidelines. Deizio talk 16:31, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about this guideline then? "Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work." I think the "multiple awards for their work" statement qualifies here since I have won 1 award and am nominated for another and in both cases, they are recognized industry awards. JRandazzo 16:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Except you didn't win a major award. You got second place from a festival with three staff members. Beyond that, it is clear that you are creating all these other articles merely to advertise yourself. Please read the guidelines on conflict of interest. IrishGuy talk 18:15, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • In which case there would be a guideline-friendly Wikipedia article about these awards, as the awards themselves would in turn satisfy WP criteria. If you have received all this acclaim then surely you can point to independent sources presenting reviews / coverage in newspapers, magazines, TV or other outlets which focus on your work? Deizio talk 16:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • So the webpages of the specific awards themselves do not qualifyas independent? Shriekfest is a recognized award even on Wiki as other films that have won an award at the festival are listed in your pages with mentions of the award. JRandazzo 16:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Coverage must be reliable and independent. So for "Shriekfest" to be notable, it must have received independent coverage as the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works, eg reports in the LA Times, Empire magazine etc. If Shriekfest can be demonstrated to be notable and a bestower of notable industry awards, then the Shriekfest website could be used as an indicator of the awards it has awarded to films. Are other articles relying on Shriekfest for notability, or is it mentioned alongside evidence of meeting WP standards? Deizio talk 17:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dead and Breakfast stars David Carradine and was distributed by a major company, among various other indicators of notability. The article mentions Shriekfest among many other references. A cross-reference in a Wiki article does absolutely nothing to establish notability, as Wikipedia is a tertiary source and is not considered reliable. Again, you need to demonstrate the existence of multiple independent reliable sources that confirm you, your friends, your film and your company or the awards you have won are notable. Deizio talk 18:21, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep At least what I see seems noteworthy enough. But then again I am not much of a deletionist. Kukini 18:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • http://www.fangoria.com/news_article.php?id=3093 - review on Shriekfest winner "Dark Remains" which mentions its win at Shriekfest (don't think Fangoria would mention it if it was meaningless)... also a google search of the words "Shriekfest Film Festival" produces over 40 relevant pages. JRandazzo 18:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Forty pages isn't a very large amount. IrishGuy talk 18:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe not but they are over 40 relevant pages. There are very few, if any, pages that do not directly refer to this event. JRandazzo 18:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reference in Fangoria is passing, and could not be interpreted as the subject of the article. And, as above, 40 google hits is actually a pretty damning blow to your case, usually 1000+ unique results are required to be deemed anything like an indicator of notability, and google hits are considered a secondary indicator at best. However, I think you're starting to get the idea of what you're looking for here. Deizio talk 18:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • A google search for Fangoria produces only 79 pages of reference. Is Fangoria something that is "not noteworthy?" JRandazzo 18:58, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Except that Fangoria actually garners way more hits than 79. IrishGuy talk 19:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Filmmaker John Landis has only 82, far below your 1000+ unique hits. Is his career not noteworthy?
OK...are you just making up numbers? Right here I can prove that Landis garners well over 82 hits. IrishGuy talk 19:08, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fangoria gets 780 unique results [2], "Shriekfest" gets 591 [3]. It's the number of results, rather than pages of results that matter in the "google test", so you were inadvertently doing yourself a disservice with the 40 figure. The crucial thing is to discover if any of the Shriekfest references prove the notability of the event and awards with coverage from multiple, independent reliable sources as the subject of the coverage. References in blogs, fansites, resumes etc. do not qualify. 590 results is not bad, but certainly borderline. Deizio talk 19:09, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • John Landis doesn't need the google test. You should be thinking about google hits as potential sources to look for the references you need (really in sources that have an existing WP article), rather than a magic number. Deizio talk 19:12, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No,he certainly does not. But when disparaging the numbers of one event which is "not noteable," a comparison is necessary. And since Fangoria has similar numbers, how can one be noteworthy while the other is not? And I mistyped, Landis has 82 pages of results... excuse me. It won't happen again. JRandazzo 19:15, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Joe, dont get hung up on the google test, it is a vague, subjective and secondary indicator. Musing on how X and Y get their respective results isn't helping you demonstrate the notability of these articles. Deizio talk 19:18, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What you are saying is that it is vague and subjective when the results are not as low as you expected. You certainly didn't claim vague and subjective when you thought I meant over 40 webpages devoted to Shriekfest. JRandazzo 19:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you're going to question my motivations then get along to my talkpage, this is about proving the notability of these articles. 40 is very low, 591 is borderline and I stand by those comments. But you'll get very few results for 7th century Chinese mathematicians who are among the greatest thinkers in human history and tons for web-exposed topics like online gaming, computer languages and other things that appeal to tech-literate white guys in the English speaking world aged 18-35, it's called systemic bias. The google test never proves notability in and of itself. Look through the results and see if you can find sufficient evidence to prove the notability of these articles. Deizio talk 19:39, 23 December 2006 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Joe_Randazzo&oldid=1140116026"