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. -- Cirt (talk) 19:45, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Gibson (film director)

[edit]

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

This article was created via a paid-editing project on elance.com. He has a lot of credits to his name, but a close look reveals that none of these films are at all significant. Coverage in reliable sources is scant; in-depth coverage is nil. None of the awards are important enough to evidence notability.

Keep if notability can be established. It should be possible given the number of well-known connections he seems to have. The motivation of the article's creation should not be a reason to delete, if WP is an "encyclopedia anyone can edit." Kitfoxxe (talk) 19:36, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I initially posted the project on elance.com. When I found out it was frowned upon to do this, I immediately had the project deleted. This project was not paid through elance.com. I wrote the information and asked someone else to post in the wiki code, since I am unfamiliar with it. I will add more references as suggested. Plus, if anyone can help edit the stubs, please do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SydMifflin (talk • contribs) 21:21, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article suffers from lack of sources, and more than a little fluff, yes... but to disagree on one point with the nominator, The three Regional Emmy Award wins, the Award for Excellence in Journalism, and the Primetime Emmy Award nomination would meet WP:ANYBIO if properly sourced. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:37, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Regional emmys are local awards. They are not nearly as big of a to-do as the real emmys and winners of these awards are hardly ever profiled in the media. I don't think these awards by themselves confer notability. Them From Space 16:51, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We disagree again, as we are not talking about "local" as if it were a neighborhood bake sale. Regional Emmys represent entire swaths of the United States that comprise many millions of constituents, and are set in place to recognize excellence in those region's television markets. The regionals are affiliated with the notable National Academy of Television Arts & Sciences, while the Los Angeles-based notable Academy of Television Arts & Sciences simply acts as the "regional" chapter serving the Los Angeles area. The Regional Emmys are essential in helping both NATAS and ATAS honor the works of deserving individuals in local TV through a regional outreach. Like the national awards, each region goes through their own rigorous nomination and voting procedures. Committees are formed to review entries for eligibility and high standards. Once accepted, each entry goes before different review committees, and their votes are cast to determine the final nominees. The final votes are then calculated by certified accounting firms within each region. Regardless of winning on a regional level, all recipients are considered Emmy Award winners. (emphasis mine). To imply that the Los Angeles regionals are the "only real Emmys" is not supportable, specially as all regions, Los Angeles included, have their winners profiled. That would be similar to claiming that a presedential campaign is notable but a gubernatorial one is not. The ATAS honors national prime time entertainment excluding sports. The NATAS recognizes daytime, sports, news and documentary programming, technology, business, regional, global media awards and, and the International Academy of Television Arts & Sciences honors all programming produced and originally aired outside the United States. These are related awards and all represent excellence within their fields and all reflect notability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To put it rather bluntly, no one cares about regional emmys outside of the film business. I guess we'll just agree to disagree here. Them From Space 21:37, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Blunt" indeed (chuckle).... though perhaps it might be more accurate to simply state that you personally do care about regional emmys, as their continued and ongoing coverage in multiple reliable sources for over 50 years[1][2] surpasses the applicable notability criteria and shows that indeed folks "outside" the film industry "care". Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:09, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^*poke* 00:34, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This biography of a living person is mostly unsourced. I searched for evidence of the subject's having been nominated for a Primetime Emmy Award in the national awards, as the article claims, for E! True Hollywood Story. A search at Emmys.com for "true hollywood story" found that the show was nominated for Emmys in 2001, 2002, and 2003 (not 2000, as claimed in this article), and that the subject was not among the producers listed on the nomination in any of those years. On a separate note, it is misleading to suggest that the most prominent Emmys are the "Los Angeles regional Emmys". As indicated at Emmys.tv, the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences administers both the Primetime Emmy Awards and the regional Emmy for the Los Angeles area, but they are separate ceremonies. Winning regional Emmys, if that could be sourced, is a sign of accomplishment within one's profession, but they are of primarily local interest and do not necessarily convey general notability for Wikipedia purposes. On the issue of whether a presidential campaign is notable but a gubernatorial campaign is not -- well, I would say at least that the presidential campaign is significantly more notable, tends to be discussed in a greater number and variety of reliable sources than a comparable gubernatorial campaign, and thus receives and deserves a larger amount of coverage in an encyclopedia. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete any and all "paid editing" content. Wikipedia is not a platform for advertising/self-promotion. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:18, 9 January 2011 (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.