Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeshua De Horta

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
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. A Train take the 20:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jeshua De Horta

Jeshua De Horta (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

non notable, contested prod. Google search for "Jeshua De Horta" in quotes yields 11 results, non of which are "non trivial works", as per WP:BIO. Username of article creator suggests this may be a autobiography as well. Natalie 19:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete, not enough reliable sources, doesn't meet WP:BIO, can't meet attribution. --Wafulz 19:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • To whom it may concern: My name is Jeshua De Horta, and as this may seem as self-advertising, I am indeed trying to link my role in expanding the article "Alfred the Great", a note worthy figure, and my contribution in producing a film on his life. This film did several TV runs as well across the US all of which can be verified by imdb.com which I find to be a reliable website. I am not to familiar with how else to verify this but I think in 100 years if someone is searching for information on Alfred the Great and would like to see a film based on his life, they will be able to find information on the film and the person who created it. Jeshuadehora 20:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)Jeshua De Horta
  • Delete per nom, WP:VAIN. RGTraynor 21:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete unless reliable sources can be found. Imdb is not a reliable source as anyone can edit it. --Daniel J. Leivick 21:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment. It is not the case that "anyone can edit" IMDb in the same way they can edit Wikipedia. IMDb should be considered a reasonably reliable source because submissions of the main content of the database (cast and crew lists, etc.) are reviewed by the editorial staff of IMDb before going live on the web site; the database is not 100% accurate, but then neither are newspapers and magazines which we would consider reliable sources. (Of course, the message boards and user comments on IMDb are not subject to editorial control and thus are not included in the content I would consider a reliable source.) --Metropolitan90 22:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I stand corrected about IMDB, my mistake. My recommendation still stands. The author of the page should take a look at WP:COI and if they really want to save the article they will have to provide evidence of notability not just existence. --Daniel J. Leivick 02:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Obviously articles often use IMDB as a source for cast lists and the like, but its trivia or biography sections are not reliable, and IMDB will accept reasonable submissions of e.g. obscure independent films, thus it is not evidence of notability. When making notability arguments, IMDB is pretty universally discarded.--Dhartung | Talk 04:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Located under "Other evidence of Notabilitly" it discusses: "The film represents a unique accomplishment, is a milestone in the development of film art, or contributes significantly to the development of a national cinema, with such verifiable claims as "The only cel-animated feature film ever made in Thailand" " end of quote... The story of Alfred the Great has only been told one other time, inacurately if I may add, almost a half-century ago, and this film can no longer be found in any country in any form. Thus that film no longer exisits as a reliable resource for people today. I would consider this a "milestone" for film as it represents the only viewable, attainable and present-day made tale of 'Alfred the Great'. You will not find a his tale in celluloid anywhere else, for it has not been done. I think the people who know who Alfred the Great is, and his contribution to the world will be shocked that his story has not been cinematized. 'Alfred the Great' is the equvilant of George Washington in England. And if not a single film exisited that depicted the tale of George Washington, and finally one came along, despite it's success, I think it would be important to say that it existed. I'm not trying to sell anything, I am merely trying to inform the world that this film does exist. But I appreciate everyones points thus far, it shows that you take this site seriously Jeshuadehora 01:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)JeshuaDehorta

    • "Comment". My name is Shelly I just wanted to throw my two cents I am doing an article for school on influential figures and I was picked to do my paper on "alfred the great". I actually found this article very resoursefull cause now I have a visual aid to show the class, I just need to figure out how to download a trailer from the internet but I still found it resourcefulShellyJohnson 01:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)ShellyJ
      • The above is user's sole contribution to Wikipedia. One wonders how she came upon the de Horta article, considering that there are nearly 400,000 Google hits for "Alfred the Great" and the first five of them referencing an IMDB film aren't this one, the first several dozen Wikipedia entries returned from a search don't mention it, and de Horta only edited the main Alfred the Great article to include his magnum opus yesterday. I'm really not liking the looks of this. RGTraynor 03:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC) RGTraynor 03:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I quite understand what RGTraynor is saying, I do agree however with Daniel J. Leivick's comment on WP:COI this indeed would be covered under conflict of interest since I did write this article myself, so that is certainly undeniable and a good point to be brought up.JeshuadehoraJeshuaddehorta Okay I think I just understood what RGTraynor is saying, and I think that is a pointless accusation that has no support, wikipedia is a major site, it is no more surprising than someone looking up a movie on imdb.com, And we're not talking about the Earl of Manchester in 1911 AD we're talking about Alfred the Great whos a pretty popular guy in the educated world (he is the first king of england, father of the navy...etc)I. When I did research for this project wiki was the first place I went. I think it's ironic that we are having a discussion about posting things that have a significant amount of proof and your accusing me of something that cannot be proved. Jeshuadehora 04:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)Jeshuadehorta

  • Comment You may not be too familiary with Wikipedia, Jeshua, but it is unusual that a brand new user would first stumble across an articles for deletion discussion. Not unheard of, but unusual. But it is really beside the point, since AfD is not a vote. The article still fails to meet policy, no matter how many school kids find it useful as a visual aid. As it stands now, this person and this movie do not meet the primary notability criterion: being the subject of multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself. That is the Holy Grail of notability for Wikipedia, and this article simply does not make it. Natalie 04:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Further comment. The Wikipedia guideline on films, which is cited above, is only a policy proposal. It is not currently policy, as it says in the box at the top of the page. Natalie 04:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Natalie I appreciate your opinion and if you've taken the time to read my posts you will see that I have actually agreed with everyones arguement regarding the deletion of this post. I understand that "AfD is not a vote" as you said, but I did think it was a safe place to bring up arguements and discuss them. I have only merely brought up my side of it, and listened respectfully to everyone elses. Wikipedia is a marvelous website, and I would not want my opinion of the site be warped by the condensending nature of a few of it's commentators. I never defended my point using ShellyJ comment. The nature of my points, whether right or wrong, was not supported in any way by her comments. I would've expected however someone in the clean-up task force like you would have not wasted her time saying things that are "besides the point" as you mentioned, and stuck to things that are the point. I have taken the time to read the policies that everyone has suggested I read and I have agreed with them. I appreciate everyone who brought up valid points, in a respectful way, and I feel more enlightened now on what goes in wikipedia and what doesen't. And that I believe, and correct me if I'm wrong, is what these discussion are all about. Not to put someone down who add their name, but to enlighten them in the reasons why in respectful manner. But if you think my opinion of what a discussion board should be after reading this is still warped than I will take pleasure in the deletion of my name from this site. Jeshuadehora 05:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)Jeshuadehorta Additionally I have to say, that apart from making films and trying to post them on encyclepedia websites to promote my own personal gain :) I also volunteer much with the INTERFAITH counsel, which is a group of people who gather together from different religions and different races and discuss their differences in a peaceful dialogue. I must say that in my experiance with INTERFAITH that it is very easy for two people to disagree to "put down" the other person. And I think that is the biggest error in our world. I know this has nothing to do with the deletion of my profile, but figured it was worth bringing up while we were bringing up things that are "besides the point"...I do hope however that though you disagree with me on this article's relavence that you can at least disagree with me agreeably. Jeshuadehora 05:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)Jeshuadehorta

Comment Thanks for understanding. Almost all of the editors who participate regularly in AfDs do so with the intention of improving the integrity of Wikipedia. Please do not take offense when someone points out a single purpose account like ShellyJohnson. I have no idea whether you posted this or not but I will assume good faith, just keep in mind that other users and I who regularly participate in these sort of discussions see this sort of thing pretty often. Many people will try very hard to keep there articles on Wikipedia even to the point of creating sock puppet accounts to back up their case when it looks like deletion is imenent. That is generally why single purpose accounts are treated with this sort of suspicion, so please do not take it personally. Good luck and I hope you continue to edit Wikipedia in the future. --Daniel J. Leivick 06:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • OK, getting back to the discussion. I am of the opinion that this article should be Deleted if adequate independent references to its subject cannot be found by the end of this debate. We need reliable independent sources for our articles, and the current references - a corporate website and IMdB - do not seem adequate to me, particularly because they largely reference the film, not the person who is the subject of this article. No objection to re-creation if better references arise later, of course. WMMartin 15:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you again Daniel J. for your comment, and in response to WMMartin, I agree whole-heartedly with your opinion that unless my article has more information to support than it should be deleted. My question however, looking to the future is if all my support needs to be found online, or if I can submit different resources... I have a non-local radio interview that I did, I have 2 magazine articles, I have a letter of intent from a distribution company stating where the film played and how many times. And I have several United Kingdom resources (reviews, festival playings, ...etc) that I just can't find online but have or could get in hard copy. Is this a wasted effort? Is there a way I can submit this to wikipedia for further review? I trust and respect the opinion of everyone and I am not here to fight this but merely learn the this process. (This is my first time doing this, so please bare with me) Thank you again Daniel and thank you WMMartin I agree with your points208.64.90.150 19:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)Jeshua Additionally, would it be better to make an article describing the contents of the film, since all my resources are retaining to the film, rather than having my name? 208.64.90.150 19:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)Jeshuadehorta

This is getting a little off topic I will respond on your talk page. --Daniel J. Leivick 00:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree that we may be getting a little off-topic, but I'm making the following comment here as it has some bearing on this debate:
Jeshua, one of the things you need to understand about Wikipedia is that it is not here to act as a publicity vehicle for you or your various endeavours. In my earlier comment I wasn't explicit enough about this, largely to avoid hurting your feelings, but I feel that I need to make this clear. I am very uncomfortable with the potential "conflict of interest" that you are creating. By this I mean that I think that people should almost never be involved in the creation or editing of articles about themselves or their works. Our job as an encyclopedia is to provide reliable and unbiased information. You may well be able to provide us with reliable information about yourself and your projects, but it is very difficult for me ( and I suspect, for others ) to take the information as unbiased, largely because of the source. Suppose there were an article about me or my work ( which heaven forbid ! ): if I made contributions to the article I'd naturally want to pick the nice references that reflect well on me, but I wouldn't mention the things that made me look bad. This would be great for my ego, but wouldn't make for a good ( unbiased ) encyclopedia article. The same is always going to be true when you make contributions to Wikipedia about yourself and your projects.
The best advice I can give you is really this: remember Orson Welles. For him the equivalent of Wikipedia was the old Encyclopedia Britannica, but when he made Too Much Johnson he didn't bother about his encyclopedia entry, he just started work on Citizen Kane. One of the marks of great artists is that they let their works stand on their merits. People recognise quality, and react well to it. Focus on doing the best you can in your work, and the success and fame, and the Wikipedia entries, will come along when you've forgotten all about this debate. WMMartin 11:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
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 "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/t/Wikipedia%7EArticles_for_deletion_Jeshua_De_Horta_f0e1.html"