Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Simes

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 no consensus. Only two people have stated a definitive view since TheDomain's clearup, and one of those was a sock. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:17, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Simes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Advertorialized WP:BLP of a filmmaker, whose claims of notability are not properly referenced. The only footnotes present here at all are one film's directory entries on IMDb and Box Office Mojo, which are not reliable or notability-supporting sources for a filmmaker -- there's no evidence of notability-building media coverage about him being shown at all, and even on a Google News search all I can find is a couple of pieces in his own hometown newspaper. This is also a direct conflict of interest, as the creator's username corresponds directly to a name present in the article as one of the subject's business partners. As always, Wikipedia is not a free public relations platform on which people get to write about themselves or their colleagues advertorially -- it is an encyclopedia, where inclusion depends on receiving reliable source coverage in media. Bearcat (talk) 21:41, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:11, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:11, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for me this is a keep based on the number of award wins his films have had. Unless there is proof this is made up, I don't think this warrants anything more than an improvement notice such as "more references needed for verification."FelixFLB (talk) 16:14, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia only extends "notable because awards" to a filmmaker if those awards are on the level of the Oscars, the Emmys, the Canadian Screen Awards or the BAFTAs, and does not extend an automatic freebie to every filmmaker on the basis of just any award that happens to exist at all — the ability of a film award to confer encyclopedic notability on its winners depends entirely on the extent to which reliable source media outlets do or don't cover the granting of that award as news. Awards like the Oscars, the Emmys, the Canadian Screen Awards or the BAFTAs make their winners notable, because those awards get media coverage — but awards like the Christian Worldview Film Festival, the Lifefest Film Festival or the Churches Making Movies Film Festival don't make their winners notable, because those awards don't get media coverage. It's the depth of media coverage that the awards do or don't receive that tells us whether any given award clinches notability for its winners or not, and not just "any award that exists at all is an automatic CREATIVE pass". Bearcat (talk) 19:56, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:FILMMAKER. the number of awards is not a mesure of popularity especially as all the wins come from paid-for festivals such as Global Independent Film Awards that I have just nominated for deletion. Dom from Paris (talk) 19:04, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• CommentI gave it a clean up. Added a few sources, but it still sounds like it was written by someone close to the subject. It had "!" and sentances that didn't sound like a wikipedia article at all. I cleaned up the intro but I wasn't able to find where all this information came from. Just to update, I have added some new sources. Maybe just needs a big clean up! --TheDomain (talk) 09:46, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources aren't really making much of a case for notability under WP:GNG. The Hollywood Reporter is much more about an actress who was in the film than it is about the film's director, and even then it exists more because that actress was already semi-notable for other reasons before making the film than it does because of the film per se; LifeSiteNews and CBN aren't really reliable sources at all; Rotten Tomatoes and Box Office Mojo verify that the film exists, but aren't notability-supporting sources in and of themselves; and the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix is the local hometown coverage I already addressed in my original nomination statement. The only thing here that really starts to count for anything at all is the Fresno Bee citation, but it doesn't count for much as it's barely more than a blurb in length and not substantively about Tom Simes apart from reverifying the existence of his film. Bearcat (talk) 21:38, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the festivals do not seem to hold of any signficance. User:vanmodhe (talk) 15:1, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

 Note: User blocked for sockpuppetry. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:33, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, subject fails WP:FILMMAKER. The references provide notability for some of the films he worked on, but not him. WP:NOTINHERITED applies. Ifnord (talk) 05:07, 22 November 2018 (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.