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. Needs to meet both BLP and GNG guidelines, which it does not seem to be able to meet. Sockpuppets/involved people have done more to harm this process than to help (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:24, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jarred Land[edit]

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

Article was dePRODded by an anonymous IP after the addition of several sources and some text. I just went through all references one by one and they either are primary, non-independent sources, non-RS sources (WP itself, imdb, blogs), don't mention the article's subject, or (in the case of Vogue) grossly exaggerated. I removed one section, which consisted only of name-dropping (all material can still be seen in the edit history and by using the diff link above). In the end, nothing much remains. In the absence of sources, this fails WP:BIO and WP:V, hence: delete. Guillaume2303 (talk) 13:15, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. The sources presented in the article do not satisfy WP:BIO. Edison (talk) 13:37, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neither his creative work nor his role as company president appear to have received more than passing mention. Many of the sources here are not acceptable and don't support the content for which they're referenced, and reliable independent sources are lacking. Google and Google News searches aren't encouraging. 99.156.68.118 (talk) 14:07, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:03, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This person is the president of the largest camera company in the united states. It looks like he is also currently on the panel of Vogue Magazine and published in Vogue print. Looks like a personal attack linked to other articles for deletion by user Guillaume. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.79.190.189 (talk) 06:56, 20 June 2012 (UTC) — 76.79.190.189 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This anonymous comment is likely to have been made by the operator of an account which had already !voted. AGK [•] 15:01, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Jarred Land is an important person in the field of Digital Cameras and Hollywood Movie Making. This page provides necessary information about his work. It should not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.39.19.0 (talk) 10:05, 20 June 2012 (UTC) — 110.39.19.0 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This anonymous comment is likely to have been made by the operator of an account which had already !voted. AGK [•] 15:01, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin Please review the edit history of this debate. One of the anonymous IPs changed the nom and Edison's !vote. I think I have restored everything as it should (while leaving the keep !votes of the two IPs), but it would be good to double-check. Thanks. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 10:27, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. this person is important to everyone in the film industry he runs RED which you should do a search on. He is tied to peter Jackson, david fincher, and more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salworx (talk • contribs) 19:24, 20 June 2012 (UTC) — Salworx (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: CheckUser data verifies that this editor has abused multiple accounts in order to subvert the proper operation of this dicussion. AGK [•] 15:01, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep . Jarred Land is incredibly influential and a key people as noted on RED's own Wiki page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Digital_Cinema_Camera_Company . If you follow Guillaume2303 recent admin activity he seems to be deleting other articles relating to Jarred land and RED as what seems to be personal attacks, or perhaps even of anti-competitive nature. One of his attacks on Bambi magazine in which he orchestrated other wiki editors and on it's talk page offered personal gifts to editors and favors for voting with him. this cannot be the way that Wikipedia is run. This has been logged with Ron Jones with Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pigfish23 (talk) — Pigfish23 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Note: CheckUser data verifies that this editor has abused multiple accounts in order to subvert the proper operation of this dicussion. AGK [•] 15:01, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There seems to be a WP:Walled garden or articles related to Land. Red Digital Cinema Camera Company seems to be another problematic article, replete with references that are to unreliable blogs or don't support the statements that they reference. As I don't know much about cameras and really are getting a bit tired of these meat/sockpuppets that don't know better than coming with ridiculous accusations instead of offering solid policy-based arguments, I don't intend to wade into that one, though. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 10:42, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There have been no personal attacks made against the subject of the article; there have been a plethora of meatpuppets, some of whom have been blocked, who have persistently made the same kind of accusations being made again here. As before, I welcome administrative oversight, and anticipate much the same result. 99.156.68.118 (talk) 03:04, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I hate to do this, but look at Guillaume2303's history. This Editor must be stopped. Of note, he had a previous account that he freely admits which was deleted and removed for similar biased actions. Look at just this one which was raised to the highest level. Just one example : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Guillaume2303#Bambi_Magazine. this clearly needs to goto admin. Members like this is what scares away support, financial and not, to Wikipedia. The comment above this is clearly them posting as someone else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pigfish23 (talk)

Note: CheckUser data verifies that this editor has abused multiple accounts in order to subvert the proper operation of this dicussion. AGK [•] 15:01, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Sources provided fall far short of establishing notability, and my own Google search turned up nothing promising. Clearly fails WP:BIO. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 04:54, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Remember WP:BIO includes a classification of creative professionals where this individual belongs according to his invention, business, and work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.224.99.2 (talk) 06:02, 21 June 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This anonymous comment is likely to have been made by the operator of an account which had already !voted. AGK [•] 15:01, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Despite several claims by various IPs on this page of the notability of the subject, they have failed to provide any sources except a couple of Wikipedia articles (and remember Wikipedia isn't a WP:RS). --Saddhiyama (talk) 08:37, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO and verifiability concerns. Also, a whole bunch of IP sockpuppet/meatpuppet accounts showing up out of the blue to vote on an AFD is nearly always a sign of spam. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:01, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: User:Pigfish23 and User:Salworx have been indefinitely blocked per CU (socks of each other) and behavioral evidence (SPAs created explicitly to disrupt this AfD). The IPs struck above have been blocked for one week as WP:SOCKs/WP:MEATpuppets and for vandalism. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:19, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was going to suggest a Redirect to Red Digital Cinema Camera Company, the company of which he says he is CEO, but I could not find any independent confirmation of that - not at Google News Archive, not at Google, not even at the company's own website. That's about as unverified/non-notable as you can get. --MelanieN (talk) 03:25, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note to above comment. Wow. Wikipedia editors are sure getting lazy. Come on guys lets do proper due diligence before throwing this guy under the bus and not make false accusations like the above which could be libel. This person states he is the president, not the CEO like MelanieN states. And it is very clear he is the president, every news article on the company website states so, for example http://www.red.com/news/la-jolla-fasion-film-festival-submission-extension-for-red. As editors and admins you have a responsibility to accuracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6F00:877:0:0:0:6C59:452C (talk) 05:47, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Delete for non-notable ( although subjective ) but i am posting this logged out as I don't want to be tied to this one... it is an embarrassment for WIKI how this talk played out with the editors G and Melanie. Melanie, for a veteran editor your complete lack of fact checking is shocking. Lets delete this one and pretend it never happened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.170.110.24 (talk) 07:24, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note to MelanieN Melanie, you are usually on ball but you messed this one up, even the links on this talk page at the top for "search for news" shows numerous sources verifying his occupation. I suggest you edit your note, and i will delete this add. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.167.192.27 (talk) 08:07, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So now you've got a new editor to attack? MelanieN's rationale re: mention by reliable sources is valid, and the above smears and attempts to pressure an editor into changing or deleting their comments are a continuation of user harassment, as enacted by previously blocked accounts. More sock/meat puppets.... 99.156.68.118 (talk) 10:33, 24 June 2012 (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.