Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jay Wade Edwards

Source: 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 keep. Yunshui  08:26, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Wade Edwards

Jay Wade Edwards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(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]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. StrayBolt (talk) 00:26, 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 ]
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]

*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  07:53, 19 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 ). No further edits should be made to this page.