Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jordon Hodges

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. --BDD (talk) 21:39, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Jordon Hodges

Jordon Hodges (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

As per the prod "No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Some of the references are dead links, some don't actually mention Jordon Hodges, and the others either only barely mention him, are unreliable or non-independent sources, or are only local coverage. (Note: The article was rejected at Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Jordon Hodges for lack of notability, but the author went ahead and created it anyway.)" and the second prod2 "note also the deception in the intro, making it look like blue links for Michigan Film Awards and Uptown International Film Festival by individually linking each word." Trying to make the awards seem more important. Hodges lacks multiple significant roles in notable productions (currently three blue linked but one is at afd, one is proposed for deletion and the other is a very minor roll ("Police Officer (uncredited)" on imdb)). Prod removed by "an Executive of Oceanus Pictures" who owns one of Hodges pictures and who has stated that using Wikipedia "is part of a marketing game plan." [1] duffbeerforme (talk) 11:35, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: I guess it's time for my traditional "run through of the sources" for anyone coming in. (It also helps me gather my thoughts as well.)

Sources

[2] This is an actual radio station as opposed to the blog radio station I thought it was going to be, but this has two things against it: it's a local story covering a local person and it's fairly short. [3] This one is longer, but this has the same issue of it being a local paper. I know that people tend to differ on how usable local coverage is, but I'm kind of one of those people who think that if someone has only really received local coverage, that doesn't really count towards much. [4] I'm kind of "eh" on whether or not this would be usable. This is another local source and covers the same film covered in the last link. What concerns me is that this looks to be sort of a very small local paper. [5] This is actually a non-local source, but you could argue that this is trivial in nature because it's really just three paragraphs long, with most of it looking to be based off of a press release. [6] This is another link about his movie "Sand Castles", but this one I wouldn't consider to be a reliable source at all. Even if we consider the person posting it to be an expert, there's something that makes me a little leery about something posted by a group that Hodges likely has membership with. [7] This looks to be another very small local paper that briefly mentions Hodges as being nominated for an award that really isn't notable per Wikipedia's guidelines. Most awards aren't notable enough to keep on that basis alone (assuming the person actually wins) and most aren't even really notable enough to contribute towards notability. This doesn't look to be one of either category. [8] Another local paper. [9] This is a list of films made in Indiana. At best this is considered to be a trivial source since all it really does is confirm that a movie was made and that it was made in Indiana. It contributes no notability, especially since it's a list that anyone can add titles to and also pulls titles from IMDb, which also isn't usable as a RS. [10] He's mentioned in this, but I'm not really sure that this is usable as a RS. It's the type of thing that's a blog of sorts for a community, but there's nothing to really show that this is truly a reliable source. I noted that the writer of the piece doesn't look to be one of the main staff members listed on the website, which is what is really making me leery of this. I've seen where many of these websites will accept articles from random people who contribute, with nothing to show their editing or vetting process. I would lean towards this being non-usable unless someone can verify the editorial process.

I'm trying really, really hard to be neutral but I'll admit that I'm probably going to be slightly more skeptical considering that one of the editors has already admitted outright that this is a marketing campaign for Hodges. I'll see what I can find, though. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:12, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Hodges is a young actor, and there is 3 of his biggest feature films yet to be released. If you google anyone of those films you will find a whole heck of a lot. Also if you happen to watch any of the films trailers, I know they cannot really be an RS, you will see that they are major films. (just go to SandCastlesFilm.com he is the lead along with Clint Howard & other notable people) I did catch a glimpse of Hodges doing a big article for Student Film Maker Magazine and HD Pro Guide, which is two pretty major sources. The articles just have not been released yet. I feel like Hodges is has nobility, just not slap in your face nobility yet. For example, there are 3 feature films that are in 90% of video stores in America, he is the lead in 2 of them, 1 has just his face on the cover. (Deadly Karma, American Scream King, Fraternity House) I just found an article all about American Scream King and Hodges from Ain't It Cool News, which is one of the biggest movie sites on the planet. They called American Scream King a "true gem". See here: http://www.aintitcool.com/node/52517 I will add it on the Jordon Hodges page now as an RS, no idea why it wasn't in the first place. This source alone gives nobility. KonstantineUO 7 May 2013 —Preceding undated comment added 17:12, 7 May 2013 (UTC) — KonstantineUO (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Blocked sock. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER

— KonstantineUO (talk • contribs) has repeatedly declared a conflict of interest, being an executive of the company responsible for Jordon Hodges's films. See, for example, this edit.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. czar · · 17:44, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

The fact that his films are in 90% of video stores in America (if it's true: you give no source for that statistic) just shows that the film is widely marketed, and tells us nothing about independent coverage, which is what is required by Wikipedia's notability guidelines. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:05, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

duffbeerforme I believe you're accidentally being misleading. On your page, [11] and I quote from what the user wrote: "Also we have not put it on Indie Wire, or any major publication on purpose. That is part of a marketing game plan. It's on IMDb, Wiki, we have a website, all we want for now. Thank you. " -- It doesn't say that Wikipedia is used for a marketing game plan, it says that they have not used their publicist to pursue their marketing game plan yet on things like Indie Wire, etc. That is part of the marketing game plan, not Wikipedia or IMDb. They are not saying Wikipedia is part of the marketing game plan, they are saying the other things are part of the marketing game plan. Probably trying to info you more, or to explain to you how it works in the film industry. Please do not quote things out of context, though I do understand how the mistake was made. Vorspire 7 May 2013— Vorspire (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Blocked sock. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER

When I made the claim I included a link to the unedited post So others can judge for themselves. I stand by my reading of the comment. "It's on IMDb, Wiki, we have a website, all we want for now." The plan is to have it on those three. Agreeing or disagreeing about the semantics of that promotional account is not really that important. Someone actively involved in the promotion of a Hodges project is actively involved in trying to keep some related articles here. Sound Familiar? duffbeerforme (talk) 13:06, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Really, in the context of the message, "It's on IMDb, Wiki, we have a website, all we want for now", coming immediately after "That is part of a marketing game plan", clearly means that putting it on Wikipedia is part of the "marketing game plan". Vorspire (the author of the article) is either surprisingly blind to the most obvious reading of that remark, or else disingenuous. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:25, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

No, I believe you just do not understand how the business works. Nobody, ever would need a Wiki for marketing. Sorry, Wiki is just information, it isn't selling anything. Also the user, in the quoted text above, was talking about marketing about a movie, not a person, Sand Castles, in the context of the Wikipedia page Sand Castles (which happens to be part of Hodges's filmography) But that page was already deleted as they needed more news clippings (look for yourself). Maybe you guys get extra points on your account for deleting solid information? Not sure how this works yet, but if that's the case, Wiki's system isn't what I thought it was. Everyone seems to try and delete things, but nobody wants to contribute to sources or facts themselves. I am quite confused. Vorspire (talk) 15:07, 8 May 2013 (EST) Blocked sock. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER

I just added many notable references to the page Jordon Hodges -- That should be suitable now. I am still learning everything about Wikipedia and the code/language. Not sure what to do from here as far as this goes. duffbeerforme I believe I have addressed all of your concerns above, most were just poor initial efforts in the first place, easily fixed. On a side note:I have found in my searches, a gold mine for many of the titles listed in Hodges filmography with a lot of great sources. If everything meets notable guidelines, I will make as many pages of those films as I can. Vorspire 7 May 2013— Vorspire (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Blocked sock. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

• Keep - The page had a right to argue deletion before, but many sources have been added and coverage that is just not local for me to saying definitely keep. Has significant coverage in one of the movie industries most notable companies Ain't It Cool News (which is now sourced on his page, it was not before) also sourced in the large Michigan paper Grand Valley Lanthorn among many others. The people arguing for deletion of the page are searching for the wrong things, like JamesBWatson searching for "American Scream" instead of the title of the film "American Scream King", just a lot of minor mistakes being made. duffbeerforme tried to quote someone saying the Wikipedia was for a marketing campaign, for one, that was about a film titled Sand Castles which happens to be in Hodges filmography, but really they were saying they didn't have enough sources yet for that film title and they wouldn't until they "started their marketing campaign" as how all films leading up to the release work. That quote had nothing to do with Hodges, just a movie he is attached to, and that page has already been deleted. -- Anyone can go to Hodges' IMDb and start searching the titles he has been in and will see he is more than notable. Everyone says to source something cause it's much easier to type a sentence than it is to search and source a page, which I have done for this. Vorspire (talk) 15:29, 8 May 2013 (EST) Blocked sock. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER

"which happens to be in Hodges filmography", "just a movie he is attached to". You've changed your tune a bit there. When you first started the Jordan Hodges article that film was a central feature. But apparently "The original creator of the page just frankly, did a poor job." Yep that was you. Or did you forget which account you where using at the time? It's not a film that just happens to be in Hodges filmography, He was a writer, producer and lead actor. duffbeerforme (talk) 16:19, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I understand you're mad duffbeerforme for me busting you out for doing a poor job with this. I apologize. Remember this entire time I have been researching sources, etc. Of course my tune is going to change the more information I learn. Again I know the film industry, sorry for using lingo that is hard for you to understand. No need to be mad bro trying to take a guessing cheap shot, you just look desperate. Again, I could care less if you delete it, just if you're going too, make sure your reasons follow Wikipedia guidelines and not personal ones. -- Vorspire (talk) 15:53, 9 May 2013 (EST) Blocked sock. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER

• Delete. I wrote the PROD that is quoted in the nomination above, and I substantially stand by what I wrote there. The dead links and "references" that didn't even mention Jordon Hodges have been removed, but much of what we have as references is local coverage of a "Gosh, someone from round here is making films: everyone round here will want to know about that" nature, and other references are pages which barely mention Hodges, including at least one that merely gives his name in credits. There is absolutely nothing at all that suggests that he satisfies Wikipedia's notability standards. KonstantineUO tells us that we can see from watching the trailers that "they are major films". I am not at all sure how it is possible to tell that something is a "major film" by watching a trailer: I should have thought that all one can tell from a trailer is what the film company wants us to think about it. KonstantineUO also tells us "If you google anyone of those films you will find a whole heck of a lot". Well, needless to say, I have Googled all of them, and what I found may or may not be considered to be "a whole heck of a lot", but it certainly is not a whole heck of a lot of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. For example, the first page of Google hits for "American Scream" consisted of IMDb, the Wikipedia article, Rottentomatoes, a trailer on YouTube, chillertv, another trailer (or more likely the same one again uploaded to a different site - I haven't checked because it makes no difference), theamericanscreammovie.com, FaceBook, movieweb, and an Amazon page selling the movie. By no stretch of the imagination do we have substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. In fact, I'm not sure that we have any coverage in reliable independent sources. Essentially similar results came for the other films (For Fraternity House a little care is needed, as just "Fraternity House" produces whole loads of hits nothing to do with the film, but "Fraternity House" "Jordon Hodges" gives results similar to those I have described.) Of course, I know that this is only of secondary relevance, as we need coverage of Hodges himself, not just of his films, but I am mentioning it in answer to KonstantineUO's. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:05, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

JamesBWatson, your above statement mate... The movie is not called American Scream, It's called American Scream King, and of course it's going to consist of IMDb, Rotten Tomatoes, etc. But you failed to look at the actual pages sources. Like here: [12] A full article talking about American Scream King and Hodges from Ain't it Cool News one of the biggest websites on the planet. The Ain't It Cool News source I just mentioned is better than being sourced from Rolling Stone Magazine in the film world, along with many other articles, Hodges is even in a 7 page magazine spread in Portfolio Fusion Magazine in one issue, and if you even go to their website you will see Hodges picture on the COVER of their Actor/Director issue (scroll down the right) [13] - Now this magazine I do not know how notable it is, it's not Rolling Stone, but you don't put non-notable people on your magazine cover. I understand that might not be a proper source, just can brew in the common sense equation. If that's not notable, then it's time for me to start trying to remove the countless sites on Wikipedia of people less notable than Hodges. I can get 90k+ edits like yourself and we can argue discussions everywhere. Vorspire (talk) 15:07, 8 May 2013 (EST) Blocked sock. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER

Thanks a lot for correcting my mistake over the title of the film. I have now repeated my Google search, using "American Scream King". Results were essentially similar, except that, together with IMDb, YouTube, and so on, I also found links to things like thepiratebay and other sites offering the film for download. Being "one of the biggest websites on the planet" does not mean that a site is a guarantee of notability. Wikipedia, Google, FaceBook, and Twitter are four of the biggest sites on the planet (I don't know, but my guess is that they are all far bigger than "Ain't it Cool News") but inclusion in any of them is no reliable indication of notability. In fact, being a very big site is often achieved by being indiscriminate, and willing to include anything: that is certainly why Google, FaceBook, and Twitter are so big. I also see with interest that the Wikipedia article on Ain't It Cool News says that, among other things, it includes "gossip from anonymous and unverified sources". You say "you don't put non-notable people on your magazine cover", but that depends on the magazine: there are hundreds of minor publications that give prominent coverage to non-notable people. The magazine's web site says that it features, among others, "aspiring talents", and goes on to say "Our magazine provides a platform for an opportunity for individuals in the arts to advance, grow, and share inspirations". Maybe I'm wrong, but that reads to me like a marketing-professional's gobbledygook way of saying that they promote the careers of people who have not yet achieved great notability. As for your offer to seek deletion of the countless Wikipedia articles about "people less notable than Hodges", please go ahead. Among the four million plus articles on English Wikipedia there are, unfortunately, innumerable articles which do not satisfy Wikipedia's notability criteria, and if you can help to reduce the number, that will be great. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:01, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Portfolio Fusion magazine invites people to submit their bios and stories for publication so I wouldn't lend a lot of weight for notability from that source. -- Whpq (talk) 21:09, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

JamesBWatson, in your "professional opinion" what do you consider notable sources? Or is it based on the amount of notable sources that someone has? Since Ain't It Cool News isn't a notable source to you (Or is it? Do you just need more notable sources like it to make you happy?), that leaves nothing I can think of except for being on the cover of Time Magazine. I am guessing that it needs more sources of notable ones, but if that's not the case, what do you consider notable? For example, concerning Jordon Hodges, with my research he is on the brink of a lot of stuff with the movie Sand Castles, so I will want to re-add his page with more sources if this gets deleted (just to go back up a couple months later, but whatever if it makes you feel good). I am legitimately asking what keeps people from you to even consider deleting stuff. If Ain't It Cool News isn't notable, what about Indie Wire? What about Deadline Hollywood ? They are all in the same boat, and even the biggest stars on the planet have references from all 3 above. I honestly cannot think of more notable websites in the film industry more than those 3. Can you? Can you please give me some examples? I am trying to learn, but what it feels like is you marked it for deletion when the page was poorly done, now that the page is done better you cannot let it go from being deleting. Kind of "admitting you're wrong kind of thing." Again I am not trying to be dis-respectful towards you, that is simply how it feels so far. I would like to know what sites you consider without a doubt notable for someone like Jordon Hodges... I also am learning what notable is, here is a guy, who is obviously an actor/writer/producer with actual produced films (All "rules" aside you cannot be naive to think that as false... which even low budget films take at least a million dollars) and he some reason isn't considered notable? I mean if I look at everyone I personally know in my life, everyday people, he has far more "nobility" than most people. So where is the line drawn? And please don't copy and paste basic rules from Wiki, I want to know, in your 90k+ editing experience, who is notable? I have read the nobility rules myself, obviously something got lost in translation for me. Thank you. -- [User:Vorspire|Vorspire]] (talk) 16:10, 8 May 2013 (EST) Blocked sock. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER

If this discussion results in a consensus to delete the article, I wouldn't recommend carrying out your threat to ignore that consensus and re-create the article. That kind of thing leads to being blocked from editing. 79.123.77.242 (talk) 07:06, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

It's no threat, and I don't agree with deleting it. If someone has a big movie come out and gets a lot of attention and there is much more notable articles about the person, then they should be added, which I will do. If I didn't do that, than it would be against everything Wikipedia stands for. I have a right to put information in as anyone. -- Vorspire (talk) 15:40, 9 May 2013 (EST) Blocked sock. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER

• Delete - No significant coverage beyond local papers. That is insufficient to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:22, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

[14] A full article talking about American Scream King and Hodges from Ain't it Cool News one of the biggest and most notable movies websites on the planet. Vorspire (talk) 15:48, 8 May 2013 (EST) Blocked sock. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER

That article is about American Scream King, and mnetions Hodges in it, but not enough that is represents significant coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 20:37, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

• Delete Promotional, pure and simple, and i would give it a G11 except that an AfD will make it harder to re-create. The local sources are an excellent illustration of why we do not rely on them for notability , for film makers any more than authors. I don't think we have ever accepted AICN for notability , nor should we, considering it is explicitly devoted to rumors and gossip as much as actual information. No amount of coverage there makes for notability , again, because it's indiscriminate and highly subject to attempts at publicity. DGG ( talk ) 04:19, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

It's a rising filmmaker, of course it will be re-created by someone, unless he dies all of a sudden and stops making movies. I am confused people actually think / use Wikipedia for promotion and you guys actually think that. Some editors here seem very out of touch with today's real world in the professional field. I guess typing on Wiki all day can do that, but nobody would ever want a Wikipedia for promotion, that seems really dumb. Especially in a filmmakers / actors case, when IMDb is so much more important than Wikipedia. Everyone knows that. Even if they did want it for promotion, if they have the sources to back it up, then so be it. Or do you judge articles based on personal feelings or actual sources and information? I am new to Wikipedia, and I have learned a lot just by these discussions, so I do appreciate the patience of explaining stuff. I guess I would like to continue adding to Wikipedia, but this entire discussion has turned what is notable upside down. I knew who Jordon Hodges was before I started editing the Wiki, I saw his film Mary's Buttons at the Uptown Film Festival last year in Detroit. He was there to do a Q&A. I actually got to this area cause I was looking up Mary's Buttons to see if it had been released or any information about it. -- Vorspire (talk) 15:48, 9 May 2013 (EST) Blocked sock. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER

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.