Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Wilbur

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. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 02:12, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Wilbur[edit]

Notability in Question

No listing for movies in IMDB
No listing for movie at the festival mentioned
No listing for individual in cast and crew reference
No listings in Google ttonyb1 (talk) 16:37, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 16:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 16:51, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:N, WP:BIO, spam. The References are pure duds, just there to look good, but do not support the article.--Artypants (talk) 18:42, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Michael Wilbur, Broken Radio and Andrew Tyrrell (now deleted) all seem connected and all not notable. This looks like a planned campaign and is obvious it's using the Wiki to give them credibility. There are no third party independent references.--Artypants (talk) 19:06, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree, he's not in the references and I can find no confirmation. JohnCD (talk) 20:26, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Not Delete"- IMDB only posts in-production movies from major production companies (dreamworks, universal, etc.) and not local. Local films are only accepted upon release and certificate of release, and a fee which has been paid if you want a copy of the receipt as proof. I have my writers guild membership number if you would like to see that as a credible source, as well as the registration of broken radio with the writeres guild of america. As for no existance in the listings from without a box, I stated that it had recieved honorable mention in the festival, meaning it was given that title but not accepted into the screenings, thusly it would not be listed. The providence film festival is a private film festival perfromed at providence college in providence, ri and I have in print files proving its award on that if you wish for me to reference, and or scan in for reference those. AS or ghost hunters the site I claimed to be not credible, I joined the crew in late 2008 as an interning prodiction assitant for the new season and will be credited upon the upon coming 2009-2010 season begining on March 18th and thusly I posted the first site to have courage of said credits. Again, I have the paper work signed and dated by the shows producers as well as pilgrim films declaring my employment as an intern. I also have my certificates of awards won by the films I have produced, as well as links to either the film it self in some that I have only produced and links to trailers of other films in which I have directed and produced. . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwilbs (talk • contribs) 20:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This very much looks like he is using the Wiki to make himself look important and successful, so as to impress people, and if he has been given the opportunity to be an “interning prodiction assitant” (interning production assistant) on the programme Ghost Hunters, then it is even more clearer that the Wiki is being used to impress them. This is not what the Wiki is about. To date, he has done nothing that would class as being notable on the Wiki, and it doesn’t help with him Blitzing Editors, I have replied to him on his talk page User talk:Mwilbs. The Wiki is not for people on an ego trip from nowhere land.--Artypants (talk) 11:14, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alas it seems I've upset Michael Wilbur or Mwilbs as he is known. You can see his very mature rant on my User talk:Artypants. I think this proves the true reason behind his article.--Artypants (talk) 16:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alas, those who had not read the first comment by fartyinmypanties over here, you can see his very mature comment to me after I had left a civil comment asking him to talk to my face and not ignore any comment I made towards him. As a result things have escalated and action will be taken on my part. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwilbs (talk • contribs) 18:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently I will now be hearing from, quote: "my agency of william morris' law firms." Mwilbs has made it clear he will also be going against WP:Civility and WP:No personal attacks. A very nice person indeed. My reply is on my talk page. ttonyb1 had asked that we put a bit of perspective on the "issue", which I totally agree with. For this reason I shall not contribute any more to this AfD, but my vote of Delete remains. Wiki Editors should never be threatened.--Artypants (talk) 20:16, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete vain vanity in vain. JuJube (talk) 08:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Artypants. ArcAngel (talk) 18:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete for reasons listed above by everyone. Dream Focus 23:57, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:USERFY back to author User:Mwilbs. When verifiable notability exists, bring it on back. I can accept that he has made several student films and one of them recieved an honorable mention at a film festival, but User:Mwilbs needs to understand that simply having done so does not mean an article need exist about him on Wiki. If he and his films get a few nice reviews or write-ups, then that would be a different story. And on or not-on IMDB means nothing, as it is already accepted that he has made these films and simply being on IMDB does not confer any notability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per reasons listed above. - NeutralHomer • Talk • February 16, 2009 @ 03:02
Delete and salt. Non-notable and self advertising. Ryan4314 (talk) 04:39, 16 February 2009 (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.