Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jordan Alan

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 keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:43, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Alan[edit]

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

Non-notable film director. Part of a series of self-promoting articles. Calton | Talk 12:34, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 12:59, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 12:59, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but barely. This seems marginally notable. Curro2 (talk) 15:31, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Based on what? --Calton | Talk 06:52, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per meeting WP:BASIC and WP:FILMMAKER in that he or his works have "received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." Other article issues notwithstanding, this fellow has recognition and requisite coverage. IE: Indie Wire and more. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 02:48, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Based on what? You've got an interview in Indiewire, and a bunch of stories about him marrying a TV actress. And his "recognition" is a single award from "WorldFest Houston" -- whatever the hell that is -- given (so IMDB says) in 2000 for a film released in 2003, which is quite the neat trick. Perhaps you have WIkipedia confused with a indie filmmaker's directory or IMDB? --Calton | Talk 06:52, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some might choose to read up on "WorldFest Houston" to learn just "whatever the hell that is". And winning an award for a festival screening in 2000, does not mean a film cannot possible have a later "official" release date after a retitling. And I am unable to ignore his works having coverage, as ignoring coverage does not make it non-existent... IE: Terminal Bliss (1992), Kiss and Tell (1996), and The Gentleman Bandit (2002). Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 11:33, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Schmidt. Passes WP:FILMMAKER with wide margin, almost all his films are notable and "have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject" as prescribed by our guideline. Cavarrone 12:08, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the well-reasoned rationale by MichaelQSchmidt. Meets WP:FILMMAKER. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:29, 14 January 2016 (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.