Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Wienbarg III

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SwisterTwister (talk | contribs) at 06:19, 10 October 2016 (D). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

George Wienbarg III (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)

Does not meet WP:GNG. None of the references actually establish subject's notability. ubiquity (talk) 17:36, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Strong Keep - The subject has written articles and reported on many major topics for a widely disseminated media source and also wrote and produced a film for a notable historic cultural instution. He is also noted for his involvement with the famed Hollywood sign and credits as an actor. Brainplanner (talk) 17:53, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this on Wikipedia. He transformed the Hollywood sign into art works to be sold. By branding the sign for clothing he created a unique merchandising technique not used heretofore. What he did was notable as avant guard behavior that has come to be regarded as mainstream. Deleting this reference to George Wienbarg would make Wikipedia l less encyclopedic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BigGuy (talkcontribs) 01:17, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:36, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:36, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:36, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not only are the 2 AfDs above simply stating he has authored contents and works, but they are not actually substantiating themselves with how, where and when they can actually improve this, how Wikipedia needs it, not what they want it to be like. There's nothing to suggest actual substance here and the obvious attempts at making the article seem larger than it actually is, is also noticeable. SwisterTwister talk 06:19, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]