Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Polish

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. bibliomaniac 1 5 02:30, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Polish

[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)

I am afraid the subject seems to fail WP:NBIO, and the entry is effectively a promotional piece, perhaps unintended, but still raises issue. This was tagged with COI sources by User:Stuartyeates, and previously was deleted under G11, I will ping User:Carrottopper who the logs credit with the older version creatorion and User:Jimfbleak who deleted it (hopefully an admin can check who added the speedy tag and ping them as well if they haven't been already). If this is NOT deleted, then the old version might warrant undeletion and integration, it seems to have had an infobox? Anyway, as far as I can tell looking at the sources, the subject has some mentions in passing, no in-depth coverage in reliable, independent sources, so IMHO the current version still fails NBIO. Thoughts? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:49, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:49, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lack depth of independent sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:41, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. FWIW, the previous version was worse than this, blatant promo, and was nominated for my SD by admin DGG Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:51, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 13:03, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 13:03, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is still pretty promotional of him and sourcing isn't in-depth or reliable enough to meet NPERSON. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:35, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As seen by the number of references of good quality and a high number of sources, this page should not be deleted. Nzgabriel (talk) 22:13, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Which references do you consider "good quality"? The number of sources is irrelevant, per WP:CITEBOMB and such. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:22, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems like Polish could meet the notability standards required by WP:CREATIVE. There is a documentary that covers him/his story which would satisfy the third rule of having to play a role in a body of work such as a feature-length movie. Outside of the existing promotion on the page, Polish is notable enough to have a page.Kangteen (talk) 17:56, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is pretty promotional although given the individuals industry this is likely to create a more promotional tone, and certainly gives reason for some of the article’s content to be deleted, but this isn’t necessarily deletion criteria. With some cleanup, I think the subject is notable itself given the coverage on top what as the editor above has mentioned. Keep with some improvements needed to the article.24.34.19.64 (talk) 18:52, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 11:51, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning delete based on the promotional tone and the atrociousness of the sources, but I would be willing to support a move to draft to provide an opportunity for those who think they can find higher-level sources to do that, with the provision that it must go through AFC review to be restored to mainspace. BD2412 T 03:27, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ - for the same reasons as I listed above. However, I would be willing to consider a move to draft if that provides an opportunity to cleanup and include higher-level sources. Nzgabriel (talk) 04:19, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On this note, I have gone through the page and removed/changed some of the language that seems to be causing the most concern. I hope this helps. -Nzgabriel (talk) 21:29, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(struck duplicate vote) Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:57, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Promotional tone has been reduced and there are good independent sources. This page should not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rkoala (talk • contribs) 23:10, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You think the promotional aspect has been cleaned up. The first reference is his fees, the 2nd is his books and audio cds on amazon, the 3rd ref is unreliable, the 4th is a talk by his, the 5th is his company, the 6th is his company, the 7th is him, the 8th is him, 9th his documentary and so on. Many of the references are predatory, low quality, illegal per policy, or primary, or him speaking, which cant be used to establish notability. And you think the article is free of promotion? And that is only the references. scope_creep^Talk 12:03, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A lot of passing mentions but not much in the way of reliable independent secondary sources. I don't think he is notable, fails WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 07:45, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We have a strong consensus that producers are almost never notable. We also want more than connections to famous people. If this was 2008, we'd excuse it, but in 2020, everybody knows not a web host for publicity. Tone can not and has not been fixed. Bearian (talk) 22:06, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BD2412. This article needs a complete rewrite from scratch, if at all. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:38, 10 July 2020 (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.