Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Jason Allen

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. czar 07:02, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Jason Allen[edit]

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

Very poorly sourced advertising article about a non-notable filmmaker. Searches did not turn up the type of in-depth sources needed to show they meet WP:GNG, and nothing in the article suggests he passes WP:FILMMAKER. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:28, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To Onel5969: Per your opinion "nothing in the article suggests he passes"? Not the major network tv shows and major film he's worked on as listed on IMDb by THEIR Producers? Not the national television commercials for major brands? Not the internationally award winning movies in which he has acted and directed? Not the massive catalogue of musical and film work that has directly affected and given entertainment resumes to hundreds of artists? Rod Serling's people seem to feel he's worth noting.AtlasAlmanac (talk) 16:59, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources, per general notability criteria. No evidence of satisfying WP:ENTERTAINER or WP:MUSICBIO notability guidelines. The subject is an independent filmmaker, musician and bit player, but has not yet received sufficient coverage to merit inclusion in an encyclopedia. It's great the subject won some small film fest awards, but the only source I've found so far that is not affiliated or a PR site is this blurb in the Arizona Republic. If AtlasAlmanac can provide more significant, sourced coverage, notability may be clearer. From the intimate, in depth (unsourced) coverage and the defensive tone above (as well as allegedly creating this promotional photo), I feel AtlasAlmanac may have external connections with the subject, and would refer them to Wikipedia's Conflict of interest guidelines and policy on paid contribution disclosure. --Animalparty! (talk) 21:57, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 21:58, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 21:58, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 21:58, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 21:58, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To Animalparty!: your reason: "has not yet received sufficient coverage to merit inclusion in an encyclopedia" -- Wikipedia has over 5.23 Million articles just in the English version of Wiki alone. The World Britannica and Funk Wagnalls Encyclopedias each (actual real worldwide encyclopedias as you alluded to) contain about 20,000 pages. This must mean that Wikipedia features at least 5.21 Million that are non-worthy of listing in an "Encyclopedia" and should also be deleted. No one is being paid or paying for the article although I have been close to his career for many years and have witnessed his accomplishments and personal facts from him personally. Do you think the personal bio of every big celebrity on Wiki came from a strange fan or editor? No. Reliable info originated from someone close to them. Your speculation: "as well as allegedly creating [[:File:Michael Jason Allen.jpg|this promotional photo"-- Would it satisfy you if his photo was the standard and typical "red carpet premiere" photo or a photo from the set of a movie or on stage performing at a big concert? If so, those ARE available as well. Thousands of Wiki images of people are promotional photos. What's your point with the photograph? AtlasAlmanac (talk) 15:54, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@AtlasAlmanac: please read Wikipedia: Notability, and provide evidence for notability. My opinion and your opinion of the subject irrelevant to deletion discussions.--Animalparty! (talk) 17:02, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 04:08, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A masterwork of promotional prose without a single reliable source, and a list of unreliable ones, about half of them IMDB, which is generally not considered a reliable source, and other sources, iTunes and the subject's own website, which are neither independent nor reliable for establishing notability. By definition, the subject of the article fails the Wikipedia General Notability Guideline, which states: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." The article subject also does not meet criteria in: Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Creative_professionals or Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Entertainers. If sufficient reliable and independent sources were found to justify keeping the article, it would still require a top-to-bottom rewrite to cleanse it of an egregiously promotional tone, which violates the fundamental Wikipedia principle: neutral point of view. The author of the article admits on this Discussion page that, "I have been close to his career for many years and have witnessed his accomplishments and personal facts from him personally," which, regrettably, is evidence of violation of another basic Wikipedia policy: no original research, which is not a permissable substitute for reliable independent sources, because it can not be verified by readers. DonFB (talk) 13:10, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable person, sources are only iTunes, YouTube, IMDb and some self-published ones. - TheMagnificentist 19:13, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insignificant sourcing. No proof of verifiable notability beyond the article author's claims. ShelbyMarion (talk) 15:17, 10 February 2017 (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.