Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jay Wade Edwards

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 keep. Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:26, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Wade Edwards

[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)

There have been no sources in this article (except IMDB) since 2009. There are no secondary sources that would indicate notability. Article appears to have been created by someone with COI issues Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:39, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:43, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:43, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 06:18, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete articles lacks even one reliable source.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:20, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Couldn't find any sources. Article doesn't cite any sources and it's been more than 10 years since its creation, which fails WP:GNG and WP:SUSTAINED — BriefEdits (talk) 21:25, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, and WP:MILL and WP:PEOPLE. Thousands of people have created short films and led marketing at a film festival for them, thus "getting" an IMdB page. For example, my domestic partner produced a film and went to Cannes Film Festival to market it. I'm so proud he has an IMdB page! We have the posters displayed in our co-op! But seriously folks ... he's not notable because of a short at the court metrage. I would also consider Stomp! Shout! Scream! to fail WP:NFILM. Bearian (talk) 17:36, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article is not supported by any sources or independent sources. - MA Javadi (talk) 22:17, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:CREATIVE. Sources can be added. StrayBolt (talk) 23:04, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. StrayBolt (talk) 00:26, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - His notable works include Space Ghost Coast to Coast and Aqua Teen Hunger Force. StrayBolt (talk) 02:00, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

StrayBolt these are all very tenuous sources, lots of passing mentions only. These do nothing to add to notability in my opinion. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 14:41, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Most of the delete !votes predate the addition of significant sourcing to the article, and they generally do not really address the subject's notability. As a creator of several quite notable projects, it should also be clear that available sources regarding the subject's work can also serve as sources for the subject's bio, since his work his, after all, an integral part of his life. Wikipedia has an unfortunately sizeable cadre of editors who believe that celebrity journalism is the highest form of the craft, and that creators who simply create substantive, admirable work, especially those who work behing the camera, should be subordinated here to the unstable exhibitionists whose chaotic personal lives populate supermarkets tabloids and their slick-paper successors, even though the former provide much more traditionally encyclopedic value. The Film Threat interview is relatively lengthy and quite substantive; the Savannah newspaper is also substantive and nontrivial. There are also significant sources which identify the subject simply as "Jay Edwards" which slipped through the very cursory WP:BEFORE pretense underlying the nomination, such as [1] and [2]. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 01:29, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KaisaL (talk) 02:23, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:CREATIVE. He co-created Aqua Teen Hunger Force and Space Ghost: Coast to Coast, both notable works. The Creative Loafing, LA Weekly and Atlanta Journal-Constitution references demonstrate notability. -- Toughpigs (talk) 05:53, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just a guy with a job; no independent significant coverage. Re: the sources cited above, 1) is an interview (does not qualify) and 2) was written by one of the subject's co-workers (not independent). The Aqua Teen Hunger Force and Space Ghost: Coast to Coast articles do not list him as a co-creator in their infoboxes. UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:56, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He was not the sole creator, just one of the 'team'. Reasonably high-ranking, but notability should be then shown by in-depth coverage. Who calls him accomplished, significant, etc.? Unfortunately, the current sources don't seem to do so outside of some passing nods. I don't think this is enough. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:10, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete non-notable despite the new references Alpateya (talk) 20:24, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alpateya is a blocked sock for User:Dorama285. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:22, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: None of these delete !votes have any real grounding in policy. "Just a guy with a job" is a consistent indicator of a poorly reasoned argument; being employed is hardly a bar to notability, and typically indicates that an editor believes a subject should not be notable despite meeting notability criteria. Asking "Who calls him accomplished, significant, etc"? shows a basic misunderstanding of notability; we cover hordes or middling musicians, mediocre actors, etc, because the purpose of Wikipedia is comprehensive coverage, not selective coverage of only those its editors consider "accomplished". Such comments show a distressing tendency to focus on celebrity biographies, and ignore the fact that notability is typically shared in common by creators and the significant work they have created, whether collaboratively or individually. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 12:20, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:53, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As improved, it's adequately sourced to pass WP:CREATIVE. XOR'easter (talk) 16:31, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per WP:HEY. Article is good enough to pass WP:CREATIVE. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 09:42, 24 March 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.