Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Multiple Chaz Dowdell films

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 speedy delete. . Mass deletion of pages added by Rodney felder (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:49, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple Chaz Dowdell films

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

Unremarkable new low-budget film on Vimeo. No evidence of notability or impact, and indistinguishable from an advert. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:34, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:02, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have expanded the list of articles here, all written by the same COI author to promote the filmmaker. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:26, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. I have expanded this AFD to include all other movies by non-notable producer/actor Chaz Dowdell, whose article has been speedily deleted in accordance with WP:CSD#A7. On the now-deleted talk page, the author of the article says that he is trying to "raise awareness" about this up-and-coming young filmmaker. That isn't what Wikipedia is for. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:26, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I opened the initial AFD and 100% support expanding to include these other films. Delete all. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 00:38, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Added a book article to the list. Somebody is trying real hard to promote Chaz Dowdell here. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:40, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Anachronist: is that not grounds for a block? They've been warned multiple times... --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 00:44, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the articles themselves aren't really promotional in tone, although taken together you can see the author is clearly trying to give exposure to Chaz Dowdell. I have explained to him that Wikipedia can't be used that way. I think we have a case of a newbie acting in good faith. He could be a good contributor here if he picked more notable subjects to write about. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:48, 2 February 2017 (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.