Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jared Morrison

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jared Morrison

Jared Morrison (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

I WP:PRODed this and it was deleted and recreated, so bringing it here. I can't remember exactly what I said in my prod statement, but it was probably along the lines of "Having looked for sources M. Morrison does not appear to be the subject of multiple non-trivial reliable ones. Please note IMDB is not a reliable source." Pan Dan 21:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. I don't see where he's notable, and the article reads a whole lot like a resume. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete "His most notable role to date would have to be the photo double for Steve Carrell"? That's not a role. Non-notable. Even if we did take IMDb into account, his resume is peppered with extra work and "uncredited".--Ispy1981 21:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete- per all of the above. Eddie 22:47, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete The IMDb listing is messed up - a number of his roles, including at least two leading roles, are listed under "Self" when they actually aren't "self" appearances. I'm still not convinced he passes WP:BIO, though, although I'm not strident either way. --Charlene 02:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete nothing there, but the level of detail given the lack of sources would confirm initial suspicions of conflict of interest - created by single purpose account with subject's own surname. Ohconfucius 05:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • KEEP Like I have stated before WIKIPEDIA should be inclusive not exclusive. All this needs is more references but the article should remain. Callelinea 18:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Can you provide some more compelling arguments in favor of keeping, other than that it should remain? I encourage you, please locate those references. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
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.