Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jesse Cowell

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 of the debate was delete. — Mar. 15, '06 [17:19] <freakofnurxture|talk>

[edit] Jesse Cowell

Horrendously one-sided. Seems to exist purely to promote him. Drat (Talk) 03:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Royboycrashfan 03:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. WP:HOLE. -- Krash (Talk) 03:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or rewrite completely. Reading the article, I think the subject might possibly be notable, but right now the article is full of copyvio. --Allen 03:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Keep or merge. Now a legitimate stub, though I have no objection to TKD's merge proposal below. --Allen 03:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Montco 03:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. No real evidence of notability, just a few reviews on obscure websites. dbtfztalk 06:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, I'm not sure I know much about R v B, but even in that universe, he looks somewhat non notable -- Samir ∙ T C 08:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete A full article, but full of what? I see no evidence that a film director/producer who distributes their products via BitTorrent is notable. Appears to be cult at best. WP:BIO refers.  (aeropagitica)  11:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 12:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - I am a big fan of Jesse's, and have seen his movie. Sadly though, I too feel he doesn't meet WP:BIO, even though he did win the microcinima film festival for best comedy. Like it was said above, his popularity is "cult" status. When (Not If!) Jesse makes it big, I'm sure an article on him would fair much better. --lightdarkness (talk) 20:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep.In response to Krash, HOLE doesn't really apply here. He's won a legit award from Movies.com and a major indie award from Microcinema. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Microbefox (talk • contribs)
  • Comment.So I took at these points into considerations. I just made it a simple page for Jesse and made a new Wiki page for Shades of Gray and removed a lot of the recalled information from what I know about the movie. --Microbefox 19:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment.If this article needs a rewrite, then I guess many sub-headings will need to be cut. --Microbefox 18:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge any information relevant to Shades of Gray and redirect to Shades of Gray (film). The article as it currently stands looks far more reasonable than it did yesterday, but since his biggest claim to notability lies with Shades of Gray, and his awards are related to that, I'd say that the relevant infomation should be go there for now. The film itself, having won some awards and been reviewed on several independent sites, has, in my opinion, a stronger claim for inclusion. — TKD::Talk 02:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Thanks for all your input. I'm still getting a hang of this site, but eventually I will be able to contribute efficiently.
  • Merge to Shades of Gray (film) per TKD. kotepho 05:43, 10 March 2006 (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.