Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jesse Merz

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 no consensus. Sandstein 08:00, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Merz[edit]

Discussion to run until at least 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Contested prod. No indication of notability--most refs are to sites that have a conflict of interest with the subject, and entire article appears to have conflict of interest and promotional issues. No non-trivial mentions in third-party sources. Note that bio at imbd was supplied by the subject, and that a listing in imdb alone does not show notability--for this subject, imdb listings are for minor, mostly uncredited roles. Katr67 (talk) 18:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —John Z (talk) 04:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are multiple claims for notability. Even if playing only bit parts, the stage acting or film acting would be enough imo. The directing of notable plays is extra. Needs better sourcing, not deleting. WP:COI is not a deletion reason.Yobmod (talk) 10:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. A messy article that needs thoroughly cleaning up, but despite that fact that the acting parts and productions seem to be mainly smaller local roles, the sheer number is enough weight to make him adequately notable for me. Not that I've ever heard of him before.... DWaterson (talk) 01:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:Frankly, if this 'Jesse Merz' is notable enough for Wikipedia, so am I -- anyone can come up with myriad important and notable events, occurances or people with whom they are associated with in minor or trivial ways -- voluminous useless information is still useless information. Furthermore, after reviewing the history of edits to this article, I have come to the conclusion this article was originally penned by Merz, and may have been editted by a variety of sock-puppet accounts of his. It comes off, to me at least, as a huge ego-trip, which I find insulting to the goals of Wikipedia. I am a vehement proponent of erring on the side of including too much information, but I think a line needs to be drawn -- right before this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jameslightell (talk • contribs) 21:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Jesse Merz is a notable theatre professional and professor. His film work is less impressive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.119.17.210 (talk) 23:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC) — 75.119.17.210 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 12:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject has recieved significant coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject:

Columbia gorge school of theatre have publiched a whole biography of the subject.
filmreference.com] have a list of his works. This is trivial coverrage but it all adds up.
IMDb.com have a similar list, which is also fairly trivial but adds up.
PDF file about him and his work.

Patton^t/c 13:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That last PDF is clearly not an independent source. - Mgm|^(talk) 15:00, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He is the artistic director of the theatre school, the imdb bio was submitted by the subject, and filmreference.com doesn't look like a reliable source. This fellow has promoted himself all over the Internet. What is needed here are several non-trivial reference in reliable and independent sources. Katr67 (talk) 15:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Someone's doing a good job of putting their resume online, but I don't see any much notability. --Bobak (talk) 18:57, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources are not independent, for example, he was staff at Columbia Gorge School of Theatre. His directing has been at student theater, summer stock and local theaters. There are no reviews, or even listings, of his work in major newspapers. Directing a notable play, say Macbeth, does not produce notability. And in that vein, ... He is but a poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage, and then is heard no more. It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. --Bejnar (talk) 05:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. To be fair, his credits aren't just "local". There are sources from Playbill and Broadway World documenting his work in New York City. He's worked at some nice theatres (Manhattan Theatre Club, Atlantic Theater, Nada, Promenade, Musical Theatre Works, etc). Neither his acting, nor his directing, nor his book writing, nor his running of theatres, nor him being a professor alone make him notable, but the sum total of all of these aspects of his work make him at least marginally notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dramaqueen25 (talk • contribs) 16:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC) — Dramaqueen25 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Weak delete. He has some non-trivial news coverage, but that’s about it. Seems to be far from passing WP:PROF.--Eric Yurken (talk) 01:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per theatre notability. Nom shouldhave noted that IMDB might be used to WP:Verify something, but does not itself confer notability. THAT is found elsewhere. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:00, 12 February 2009 (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.