Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Greisen: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Steve Greisen: Provided date requested |
→Steve Greisen: Reply |
||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
* '''Keep''' I propose that the article is kept. As [[User:Walter Görlitz|Walter Görlitz]] says, Greisen is a notable person. However, I also propose that the page is reverted to a previous version; the current version is simply an advertisement for Reel Productions. The previous version was an encyclopedic biography of Steve Greisen. --[[User:GreatAwk|GreatAwk]] ([[User talk:GreatAwk|talk]]) 16:16, 21 October 2012 (UTC) |
* '''Keep''' I propose that the article is kept. As [[User:Walter Görlitz|Walter Görlitz]] says, Greisen is a notable person. However, I also propose that the page is reverted to a previous version; the current version is simply an advertisement for Reel Productions. The previous version was an encyclopedic biography of Steve Greisen. --[[User:GreatAwk|GreatAwk]] ([[User talk:GreatAwk|talk]]) 16:16, 21 October 2012 (UTC) |
||
:*Could you please identify a previous version that you believe to be encyclopedic, so that others can evaluate it. [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 20:29, 22 October 2012 (UTC) |
:*Could you please identify a previous version that you believe to be encyclopedic, so that others can evaluate it. [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 20:29, 22 October 2012 (UTC) |
||
:: |
:: Anything on or before 9 August 2012. These versions are at least unbiased, which cannot be said for the current version. [[User:GreatAwk|GreatAwk]] ([[User talk:GreatAwk|talk]]) 23:10, 22 October 2012 (UTC) |
||
:<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Actors and filmmakers|list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions]]. [[User:Gene93k|• Gene93k]] ([[User talk:Gene93k|talk]]) 00:40, 22 October 2012 (UTC)</small> |
:<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Actors and filmmakers|list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions]]. [[User:Gene93k|• Gene93k]] ([[User talk:Gene93k|talk]]) 00:40, 22 October 2012 (UTC)</small> |
||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
* '''Keep'''As someone who actually knows and has worked with Steve Greisen I wonder how someone completely unknown to the subject of an article can claim it to be spam. Mr. Greisen is well known in the industry he is in: http://www.christiancinema.com/catalog/newsdesk_info.php?newsdesk_id=418, http://www.matthewward.com/closingbook.html, http://www.fandango.com/stevegreisen/overview/p625094, http://www.rottentomatoes.com/celebrity/steve_greisen/, http://www.imdb.com/name/nm4237126/. If there aren't enough references there let me know. Previously this article was written by someone unknown to Mr. Greisen and was based on vague truths, it appears to be updated with factual information and it's deemed as a "puff piece?" Mr. Greisen's "award winning" (let me again reference those since they were obviously missed by a self-appointed-authority that didn't bother to read the Awards or References sections: http://www.reelproductions.net/awards/) is something I've personally been witness to. There is nothing on this page that cannot be researched and it's validity found out. Perhaps a review of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion should be made, with attention to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not and specifically "Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing." If a personal story and success is thought puffed up it would appear that this is an argument from a "soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda" and is not being used in the proper context. I would like to know what specific claims [[User:Calton|Calton]] deems are "exaggerated claims and claims unsupported by actual facts." This is no more a puff piece or advertising than http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Spielberg.[[User:TheNewAmanda|TheNewAmanda]] ([[User talk:TheNewAmanda|talk]]) 22:27, 22 October 2012 (UTC) |
* '''Keep'''As someone who actually knows and has worked with Steve Greisen I wonder how someone completely unknown to the subject of an article can claim it to be spam. Mr. Greisen is well known in the industry he is in: http://www.christiancinema.com/catalog/newsdesk_info.php?newsdesk_id=418, http://www.matthewward.com/closingbook.html, http://www.fandango.com/stevegreisen/overview/p625094, http://www.rottentomatoes.com/celebrity/steve_greisen/, http://www.imdb.com/name/nm4237126/. If there aren't enough references there let me know. Previously this article was written by someone unknown to Mr. Greisen and was based on vague truths, it appears to be updated with factual information and it's deemed as a "puff piece?" Mr. Greisen's "award winning" (let me again reference those since they were obviously missed by a self-appointed-authority that didn't bother to read the Awards or References sections: http://www.reelproductions.net/awards/) is something I've personally been witness to. There is nothing on this page that cannot be researched and it's validity found out. Perhaps a review of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion should be made, with attention to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not and specifically "Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing." If a personal story and success is thought puffed up it would appear that this is an argument from a "soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda" and is not being used in the proper context. I would like to know what specific claims [[User:Calton|Calton]] deems are "exaggerated claims and claims unsupported by actual facts." This is no more a puff piece or advertising than http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Spielberg.[[User:TheNewAmanda|TheNewAmanda]] ([[User talk:TheNewAmanda|talk]]) 22:27, 22 October 2012 (UTC) |
||
: *Wikipedia is not about whether you know a person. It's about unbiased, verifiable information. Therefore, while I agree with you that it's a good thing to have less "vague truths", as you call them, I feel the article needs to not sound like an advertisement, which it does right now. If the article could be written in an unbiased, clearly cited manner (without most references directed to Greisen's personal websites), this would likely be acceptable to the Wikipedia community. [[User:GreatAwk|GreatAwk]] ([[User talk:GreatAwk|talk]]) 23:10, 22 October 2012 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 23:10, 22 October 2012
- Steve Greisen (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)
Horrible puff piece of minor -- at best -- media entrepreneur. Indistinguishable from spam, really. Calton | Talk 00:55, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Deletion criteria should be whether the subject is or is not notable, not how well the article is written. The article could certainly be written better, but the subject is an award-winning Christian filmmaker http://www.christiancinema.com/catalog/newsdesk_info.php?newsdesk_id=418# and is notable. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:06, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
- You apparently have some difficulty with the meaning of "puff piece" and "puffery". Hint 1: it's not about writing style -- though you seem to have been, long-term, quite happy with this ad-copy-disguised-as-an-encyclopedia-article -- but with exaggerated claims and claims unsupported by actual facts. Hint 2: engaging in further puffery -- like the meaningless-on-it's-own adjective "award-winning" -- is not really helping your case. --Calton | Talk 02:04, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
- Keep I propose that the article is kept. As Walter Görlitz says, Greisen is a notable person. However, I also propose that the page is reverted to a previous version; the current version is simply an advertisement for Reel Productions. The previous version was an encyclopedic biography of Steve Greisen. --GreatAwk (talk) 16:16, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
- Could you please identify a previous version that you believe to be encyclopedic, so that others can evaluate it. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:29, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
- Anything on or before 9 August 2012. These versions are at least unbiased, which cannot be said for the current version. GreatAwk (talk) 23:10, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
- KeepAs someone who actually knows and has worked with Steve Greisen I wonder how someone completely unknown to the subject of an article can claim it to be spam. Mr. Greisen is well known in the industry he is in: http://www.christiancinema.com/catalog/newsdesk_info.php?newsdesk_id=418, http://www.matthewward.com/closingbook.html, http://www.fandango.com/stevegreisen/overview/p625094, http://www.rottentomatoes.com/celebrity/steve_greisen/, http://www.imdb.com/name/nm4237126/. If there aren't enough references there let me know. Previously this article was written by someone unknown to Mr. Greisen and was based on vague truths, it appears to be updated with factual information and it's deemed as a "puff piece?" Mr. Greisen's "award winning" (let me again reference those since they were obviously missed by a self-appointed-authority that didn't bother to read the Awards or References sections: http://www.reelproductions.net/awards/) is something I've personally been witness to. There is nothing on this page that cannot be researched and it's validity found out. Perhaps a review of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion should be made, with attention to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not and specifically "Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing." If a personal story and success is thought puffed up it would appear that this is an argument from a "soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda" and is not being used in the proper context. I would like to know what specific claims Calton deems are "exaggerated claims and claims unsupported by actual facts." This is no more a puff piece or advertising than http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Spielberg.TheNewAmanda (talk) 22:27, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
- *Wikipedia is not about whether you know a person. It's about unbiased, verifiable information. Therefore, while I agree with you that it's a good thing to have less "vague truths", as you call them, I feel the article needs to not sound like an advertisement, which it does right now. If the article could be written in an unbiased, clearly cited manner (without most references directed to Greisen's personal websites), this would likely be acceptable to the Wikipedia community. GreatAwk (talk) 23:10, 22 October 2012 (UTC)