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.
Weak Keep There are some interviews from
LA Times and
Pacific Stabdard involving the subject, and some of his works are notable enough to have their own articles. But the Wikipedia article itself is written like a promotion. If the article did not get rewritten into a more unbiased manner, and if more sources weren't given by next week, then it's recommended to be deleted.
Tutwakhamoe (
talk)
17:22, 6 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Leaning towards Delete I basically agree with Tutwakhamoe. While the films seem to be notable for a page, I dont think he has enough of a body of work for his own page. You could argue either way but, the way the page is written currently and cited is terrible. Using IMDB and Linkedin to source info is not acceptable at all. I doubt anyone not affiliated with him will take enough interest to save this page. If someone does some work and can find articles, i would consider keeping it but, as it stands it could almost be nominated for a speedy deletion.
ScienceAdvisor (
talk)
21:35, 9 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Weak keep there's an article in the LA Times
[1] and this about his Prescription Thugs film at Tribeca in the Hollywood Reporter
[2]. Could perhaps merge to one of his films, Prescription Thugs seems to have some coverage, but no article here on wiki.
Oaktree b (
talk)
23:28, 13 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Weak keep—Though it appears that Bell is currently only notable via his directorial activity on an acclaimed documentary, I'm thinking that there might be sufficient content related to his motivations around co-writing and directing this documentary to justify keeping the article. I've made some additions to the article, which can be seen via
this diff link (this is the full diff between nomination and my last contribution). --User:Ceyockey (talk to me)
01:27, 28 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Leaning keep Two of Bell's films have been reviewed by The New York Times (
1,
2), The Los Angeles Times (
3,
4), and Variety (
5,
6), among other publications.
Mooonswimmer23:45, 2 January 2023 (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.
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.
Weak Keep There are some interviews from
LA Times and
Pacific Stabdard involving the subject, and some of his works are notable enough to have their own articles. But the Wikipedia article itself is written like a promotion. If the article did not get rewritten into a more unbiased manner, and if more sources weren't given by next week, then it's recommended to be deleted.
Tutwakhamoe (
talk)
17:22, 6 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Leaning towards Delete I basically agree with Tutwakhamoe. While the films seem to be notable for a page, I dont think he has enough of a body of work for his own page. You could argue either way but, the way the page is written currently and cited is terrible. Using IMDB and Linkedin to source info is not acceptable at all. I doubt anyone not affiliated with him will take enough interest to save this page. If someone does some work and can find articles, i would consider keeping it but, as it stands it could almost be nominated for a speedy deletion.
ScienceAdvisor (
talk)
21:35, 9 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Weak keep there's an article in the LA Times
[1] and this about his Prescription Thugs film at Tribeca in the Hollywood Reporter
[2]. Could perhaps merge to one of his films, Prescription Thugs seems to have some coverage, but no article here on wiki.
Oaktree b (
talk)
23:28, 13 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Weak keep—Though it appears that Bell is currently only notable via his directorial activity on an acclaimed documentary, I'm thinking that there might be sufficient content related to his motivations around co-writing and directing this documentary to justify keeping the article. I've made some additions to the article, which can be seen via
this diff link (this is the full diff between nomination and my last contribution). --User:Ceyockey (talk to me)
01:27, 28 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Leaning keep Two of Bell's films have been reviewed by The New York Times (
1,
2), The Los Angeles Times (
3,
4), and Variety (
5,
6), among other publications.
Mooonswimmer23:45, 2 January 2023 (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.