Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Wienbarg III

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 no consensus. Sandstein 11:07, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

George Wienbarg III

(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 lless encyclopedic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BigGuy (talk • contribs) 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]
keep. Subject is substantially referenced in at least two RSs from MSM. Played a role in the history of the Hollywood sign, and iconic landmark. Appeared in several films. The article could be pared down a bit and references cleaned up.--Johnsemlak (talk) 12:44, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a journalist does not inherit notability from his subject, unless he becomes the news or gains an award because of it. Typos indicate this might be a vanity page. Bearian (talk) 16:02, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There does not any longer seem to be a preponderance of typos.Brainplanner (talk) 01:50, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Case for notability seems to have been provenMasterknighted (talk) 03:20, 15 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:01, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The source has been covered well through reliable sources and therefore makes it notable. – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 23:34, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep' - Well rounded entryJmpknoops (talk) 17:45, 22 October 2016 (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.