Deletion of Adam Phillips (animator)

Comment: Definitely written as a promotional piece, not an encyclopedia entry. Needs some serious editing and trimming. Definitely has numerous primary sources that don't support any valuable content (including interviews, citations 8-11). His positions at Bob's Burgers is out of date using language as "To this day", whereas IMDB shows him ending in 2019 https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1561755/fullcredits?ref_=tt_ql_1 while citing the subject's own LinkedIn page (which is also not up to date and omits another assistant director position that can be found in IMDB https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0680185/). The sections for Selected works and Awards have no citations at all. Trimming the promotional stuff is an editing project, not a reason to delete the article. However, editing and trimming the article before AfD would certainly make it a lot easier for others to decide on whether or not the OP's nomination to delete is valid or not. If the OP's assertion is true about no extensive independent coverage for the subject/person, then  may not be satisfied. I'm not sure |artistic notability covers it, because assistant director may not be a co-creator. Remember, notability is |NOTINHERITED, and being a cast member and mentioned in IMDB doesn't make you notable no matter how notable the TV series is, especially when there are over 10 other assistant directors named that overlap the time period Adam Phillips worked there. Since OP seems most familiar with the article and subject, perhaps he should take a big pair of scissors to the article at this time. I agree that it needs a major chop
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NBIO||WP:ARTIST||WP:NOTINHERITED)

Comment: I just did a major edit on the article based on concerns expressed in this AfD, including removing some content related to , ,  etc. I went over every section except the Dashkin section (got tired and just bundled it together, untouched). Still, most of the citations remaining in the article are either from Adam Phillips' own website bitey.com or are based on comments made by Adam Phillips in interviews. There is no news media coverage, only industry-related blogs and stuff. He may well be notable, but I don't see it yet
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:ABOUTSELF||WP:ORIGINAL||WP:VERIFY)

Comment: The nominator's argument that the subject does not meet  is unconvincing. A |vaguewave rant about lack of notability, but no real effort to provide an actual source by source analysis of why the cited secondary sources present in the article are not suitable or adequate. Even with the removal of the subject's social media accounts and some primary sources, there is still adequate sourcing to demonstrate notability. Further, nominator did not provide an explanation that  was done before the nomination was made, so perhaps this is in fact a bad faith nomination
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:VAGUEWAVE||WP:BEFORE)

Comment: Okay, I've mulled it over for a few days and I'm ready to place a vote on this AfD. This guy has basically been a technician and occasional supervisor in the field of animation, also done some documentation/training. This is no different than anyone who has ever been in technical/computer positions for one or two decades. However, he has ZERO coverage that doesn't include a direct interview with him (all are primary sources by Wikipedia editing definitions). His stints at Bob's Burgers didn't net him anything more than "film credits" -- which are important in the film industry, because it's part of your portfolio to help get hired for your next gig, but is no more notable than saying he was "on staff" for a particular film. A search for "adam phillips bob's burgers" finds not even a brownie point by Wikipedia notability standards. His main client from freelancing (Toon Boom) used him liberally and seemed happy with his work, but their coverage of him is not "outside of the industry". There are zero book reviews of the first three works/books in the article; the last has a single review https://www.skwigly.co.uk/animate-to-harmony/ which basically says the book is part of the company's manual set for the software: ''"With apparent co-operation from the company itself, the book serves as an extension of the software’s official literature."'' He just doesn't reach notability by  or  standards (''"received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject ... Primary sources ... do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject"''). I vote to delete the article (even after all the work I did on the article, which was basically an exercise in seeing if I could do something or learn something to help break the impasse of this relisted AfD
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NBIO||WP:GNG)