Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carl Jackson (filmmaker) (2nd nomination)

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. Missvain (talk) 06:45, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Jackson (filmmaker)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page appears to have been created and maintained by its subject for purposes of self-promotion. Little of its content is sourced, and seven of its nine reference sites are database-generated, even when housed at notable publications' websites. No articles on Wikipedia link to this one.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Marjobani (talk) 10:25, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. no evidence of satisfying WP:CREATIVE. I can't find significant coverage, only trivial/ routine snippets, wikipedia mirrors, or modules on NY Times or Washington Post that merely (barely) indicate existence.--Animalparty-- (talk) 05:40, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

{Comment to admin): Is that 2nd Afd nomination tag correct? it links back to this discussion. --Animalparty-- (talk) 05:42, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The creator of this article, Sarahent, has only edited this and Carl Jackson Entertainment (deleted as spam), has an obvious COI and greets deletion with accusations of bad faith, including racism. the article should be considered on its merits, but the intention of its editor is clear Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:23, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This page should not be speedily deleted because... (There is no unambiguous advertising or promotion on this page: there is evidence of independent sources and notability which was why the first page was deleted. I followed the guidlines to a tee by using this page as my example. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnolia_Pictures Finally someone under the name anonymous keeps flagging these pages. I feel this person is bias. They went as far as adding this in the catogory of the United States Of America- related deleted discussions. Wiki clearly states: This is a high level category for deletion sorting. It is strongly recommended you do not add discussions directly to it. Instead, please add them to a more specific category, such as a state and/or relevant subject area.

) --Sarahent (talk) 17:42, 22 February 2015 (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.