Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill Ewing

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. And note that it is unreasonable to require editors who are improving an article while it is at AFD to also go fix problems in an external website and threaten the immediate deletion of the article while the external website processes the request to correct their data. TO refer to good faith research bu an editor to ensure that the data they add to an article is accurate as OR is silly. As User:MichaelQSchmidt pointed out, when considering the sources, this article meets the criteria of WP:PEOPLE. I think that effort deserves a WP:Hey. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 04:39, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Ewing

Does not meet WP:BIO, no major roles. --fvw *

Comment With respects, WP:BIO has subsections. The man falls under WP:CREATIVE which he passes with flying colors. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:03, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE - I would have given him a Speedy. Notability non-existent. ttonyb1 (talk) 06:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The IMDB link in the original article went to a different person of the same name, which does make it somewhat suspect. --fvw * 06:49, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Studiedgenius (talk) 07:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)) I apologize that there was a mistake in the IMDB link; the link should be accurate now.[reply]

Although the links has been corrected, the references continue to point to two different people. Bill and also William. As a result I still support my earlier comments for this article. ttonyb1 (talk) 19:07, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I fixed the double-ref problem. Will look further into notability. Can note that he was co-writer for the award-winning film End of the Spear. There might be more to be found. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I still see the reference to the film Christmas Child. (William Ewing) ttonyb1 (talk) 19:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, thought you were referring to the one ref in two places. However, I have also just corrected the filmology. Nice catch. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:44, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Major problem with this article as the author seems to have mixed and matched his Bills a few different ways. I have left him a note on his talk page asking just to which Bill he is referring in the article. Until that is cleared up, it will be impossible to properly source the article or determine notability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:55, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update Using the ref'd bio, I bactracked and found his correct filmology. IMDB lists his films under "Bill Ewing (I)", "Bill Ewing (II)]" and as "William Ewing". I have corrected the article and now have enough to seek determination of notability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:42, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow Just found out this is also the same Bill Ewing who did End of the Spear. More stuff for the article. Back soon. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:23, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I finished with the major expansion and sourcing. This man does indeed have significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject and so seems now to pass WP:PEOPLE... perhaps not so much as an actor in his early career, but definitely as an acclaimed fimmaker in his current career. There's more to do, but I feel notability has been established. Finally. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:21, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as if my opinion were not now obvious. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:02, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My only concern is that we now have multiple IMDB entries supporting this article. ttonyb1 (talk) 04:13, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well (chuckle) we don't, as we only have one article about one person. The problem is IMDB's but can be easily corrected at their end. As I wrote the author about this same concern, I ~~will submit~~ have submitted (12-19-2008) a sourced update/correction to IMDB to have the AKA of William added to Bill (I), and have the entries for Bill (II) and Bill (IV) merged to Bill (I). The multiple entries happend with production companies not adding informations to the proper individual... accurate as they may be in fact. It is more important at the moment to make sure the article properly reflects all the works of this one individual, and once my submission to IMDB is checked and implemented, I will personally make sure the Wiki article is updated to reflect this. Fair enough? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:16, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Combining all those IMDB Bios violates WP:NOR, you'll have to get them to clear it up first. Until then, I'm sticking with delete... --fvw* 08:00, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- To set your mind at ease that I am NOT violating Wiki Policy WP:NOR, please re-read it carefully. The article in question is about the man named William 'Bill' Ewing, the president of Every Tribe Entertainemt. The Dove Foundation biography is of someone named Bill Ewing of Every Tribe Entertainment in which it is confirmed that the man in the biography was crew on Meteor [1], was in Korg 70,000 B.C.[2], wrote and produced The End of the Spear [3], and directed Christmas Child [4]. Being able to connect the dots and then properly place all 4 IMDB names in external links because they are the same person is NOT original research in that it IS NOT original thought, IS attributable to reliable published sources, and IS NOT not a new analysis or synthesis that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources. That I have sent a request for corection/combination of these 4 names to IMDB editors is also not original research, as I have provided them with even greater proofs than I have Wikipedia. I am greatly offended at your statement. Please either strike or retract your accusation that I have violated policy. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:30, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let's all take a deep breath...I feel better. I have to say I agree with fvw and I am still sticking with my prior delete. The issue I still have is there are numerous IMDB entries that are being used to support the article and a single person. I cannot confirm they are indeed the same person - we editors are but simple mortals. 8-) If they were combined by IMDB I would probably reverse my delete to a keep. I know this is somewhat frustrating for all involved and I do appreciate all the work you are doing to keep this alive. Good luck... ttonyb1 (talk) 03:55, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- With respects, I ~~will remove~~ have removed the IMDB external links temporarily, as they do NOT support the article... only act as external links per WP:EL. The article and notability is well supported by the numerous references and sources, and IMDB does not confer notability. A single link will be returned omce IMDB acts to merge their data. Further, if IMDB's multiple listings for one person were of amy concern, they can simply be ignored as IMDB does not assert nor confirm a notability. I am waiting for an aknowledgement of the numerous references and sources from the deletists as ignoring them makes the delete opinions come off as a simple WP:UGH. 2 "keeps" and 2 "deletes" do not make a consensus. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Based on Michael's work and the refs now in the article. There's also a book at gbooks that calls him the nicest person in Hollywood in passing. "Identifying" two people as the same is something one must do all the time in biographies with common names, and isn't considered OR if the evidence is decisive. How does one know that 2 biographies of George Washington are about the same person, not a pair of identical twins who pretended to be the same person and successfully kept their secret? Usually one presumes that IMDB or any other source wouldn't have multiple articles on the same person, but if one finds enough to identify two subjects beyond reasonable doubt, as appears to be the case, that is OK. There was an AfD a while ago about a Chinese professor who had 4 unlinked pages at Ohio state, but clearly they were the same person, unlike that of what became clear was a different person of the same name at the U of Michigan who worked in a nearby but different field. There was a recent thread at the OR noticeboard about the much more difficult case of chains of synonymous words, where I think complete equality was thought sufficient; since people are much more sharply defined than words, either the same or different, the problem is a lot easier.John Z (talk) 22:35, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per MQS's comments (he said it best...and first!). Ecoleetage (talk) 23:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per John Z. John254 02:04, 22 December 2008 (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.