Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam Ropp

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Consensus is that topic does not meet the general notability guidelines. Jreferee t/c 04:41, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adam Ropp

Adam Ropp (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Very poor sources are bothersome. I've been unable to pin down what these specific "awards" are exactly. I'm slowly suspecting this is either autobiographical or promotional in intent. Am I being too hard on this article? I don't think so but that's why I'm going through AfD to get a sense of what others think. Pigman 02:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

  • delete No reliable sources to back up nebulous claims, he can come back when he's properly WP:N documentable. Pete.Hurd 02:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete doesn't appear notable, no sources to show notability. NawlinWiki 02:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete this quite-obvious piece of self-promotion. "teen idol and grand auteur of independent movies"? Please. humblefool® 02:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete A7, none of the sources I checked assert notability. He's won a few minor film festival awards, but nothing else. His fan club appears to consist of one person, and either he himself or said fangirl are almost certainly User:Indiefilmreport, who is the near-exclusive editor of this article and has worked solely on this article. I can't quite prove WP:AUTO but it's a good bet. Alba 03:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment; This isn't a speedy, since "known for making popular; record breaking short films" and "holding movie records throughout the entire Southwest and most of the Midwestern United States" are assertions of notability. Not that I care if it gets speedily deleted, if I did I'd remove the tag, but A7 is for subjects that don't assert notability, which this does, even if it's untrue. Masaruemoto 04:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment: I find myself mulling over the ethics and protocol for Speedy in cases like this. Obviously I decided to do AfD rather than speedy because I wanted other opinions. Does the fact that an article makes assertions of notability mean it can't be speedy deleted? IOW, if I check the references and links and find no evidence of actual notability by Wikipedia standards, would it be proper to put it up for speedy rather than going through AfD? Or is it always and only for immediately obvious problem articles? (Immediate and obvious to an Admin who would have to make the actual deletion judgment, that is.) I think I know what the answer will be for most editors but I'm curious for feedback on this point. --Pigman 13:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
    • The criterion for CSD A7 is No assertion of importance/significance... This is distinct from questions of notability, verifiability and reliability of sources. No article that makes an assertion of notability can be speedied as A7, Alba tagged this because the sources don't assert notability, but it's whether the article itself asserts notability that is the important thing. Masaruemoto 02:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the input, Masaruemoto. It may have seemed obvious with the exact phrasing of CSD A7 but I guess a part of me figured I might be able to make the judgment of actual notability. This belief obviously circumvents consensus opinion when there's any question about the notability. Bad Pigman, no cookie. Lesson learned I think. Pigman 18:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • comment*Ok, I understand the harsh criticisms of the article I posted. I can tell however, that the editors of this article only care about filtering non legitimate articles to maintain the reputation of Wikipedia. I appreciate that. To the comment by (humblefool) “” this quite-obvious piece of self-promotion. "teen idol and grand auteur of independent movies"? Please.”” First off humblefool, no disrespect, but you need to know what “Auteur” means in context to a filmmaker. au•teur a filmmaker whose individual style and complete control over all elements of production give a film its personal and unique stamp.

Since Adam Ropp (as verified on IMDB) is the Producer, Writer, Director, Actor, Editor, Sound Editor, Cinematographer, Set builder, Prop Builder, Grip and Casting Scout on his movies I would say that he more than qualifies as a GRAND AUTEUR. Facts are facts. Fact: That is what “Auteur” means and Fact: he does those things! He is a Grand Auteur. As for “Teen Idol”. If you visit his fan site created by a “Teen” in Irving Texas you will see on the “message forum” that there are literally hundreds of “TEENS” with hundreds of different IP Addresses “IDOLIZING” him! Just because he’s not FAMOUS to all teens does not mean that he’s not a teen idol. When hundreds of Teens write poetry and talk about raping him in his sleep I would say that he’s a “Teen Idol”. For the overall general “nobility”. I really don’t understand how the hands down #1 Movie Site on the planet is not a “noble” source for a filmmaker? The Internet Movie Database WILL NOT allow facts to be published on their web site if the content is not proven to be true with high standards. You need to go read the IMDB criteria rules for trivia entries. No content can be applied unless it’s proven through no less than 3 National legitimate sources. On IMDB it clearly states “Is the only filmmaker in the Midwest to win 9 best pictures with one movie”. Here’s the direct link to the page with that fact. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1459997/bio I really do respect your concerns, but if this is still not good enough then what is?? Indiefilmreport 20:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)indiefilmreportIndiefilmreport 20:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

    • IMDb has no such criteria for trivia, you're just making that up. Masaruemoto 02:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete; non-notable. Masaruemoto 02:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm particularly irked that Indiefilmreport just recently removed the AfD notice from the article. I reverted and offered a stern word on their user talk page. It doesn't directly affect the conversation here on the merits of the article but I thought it worth mentioning. Pigman 01:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. There are sources out there, and he's on IMdB, which is not reliable but counts for something. Please don't bite the newbies, and don't assume it's a female fan. :-) I've placed all the revelant tags on the article and given notice to the editors who have taken "ownership" of the article. I'll look for better cites Bearian 14:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I found 571 Ghits, the first is IMdB and the second is WP, but many are good cites. See [1]. I added content and cites. Bearian 15:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete: Fails WP:BIO for Creative professionals. --Sc straker 03:30, 29 September 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.