Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Morford

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. MBisanz ^talk 22:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Joe Morford

Joe Morford (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Possibly non-notable person. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 19:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• • KEEP. I am the this article's primary author. This article is written from a neutral point of view without hyperbole and bias and supported by evidence from reliable sources. This article contains substantial referenced and verifiable material from sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This article contains no original research; rather, cites accessible, reliable and published sources. The reader can find and verify these sources. This article contains no copyright violations. More specifically, Joe Morford is an known filmmaker (IMBd); award winning songwriter (Billboard). He is an established playwright (LA Weekly, Actors Equity, Backstage West, Glendale News Press); headlining club comic (Improv); and, touring college act (GR press). Though this article does not represent the entirety of his work, it does however, clearly exhibit a noteworthy personality and a vetted overview of the artist with sufficient justification for a listing.

Slagoog (talk) 00:46, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~~~~<noinclude></noinclude>

Davewild (talk) 08:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:CREATIVE and WP:ENTERTAINER. As a creative person, there seems to be no evidence on several points such as being regarded as an important figure, creating a significant well-known work, or receiving significant critical attention. As an entertainer, does not appear to meet guidelines as a significant role in a film or television (well known), large fan base, or making unique and prolific contributions. Also, except for the IMDB link on the person himself, the other links do not mention the subject, are simply main sites and do not directly lead to a story regarding the subject, or are playbills, most of which I can not find his name. Sorry, and no offense is meant by this nomination, but the person just does not seem notable enough. At least not yet. Pax85 (talk) 08:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:CREATIVE and WP:ENTERTAINER. The references given are not reliable (except for Billboard and the NYT) according to WP:RS. Billboard and NYT would be reliable but I can't find where the link given (or completely on my own for that matter) talks about Joe Morford. That being the case, there's zero support or evidence from reliable sources that this person is notable. Slagoog, I'm sorry but there's just no concrete citations. Find them and this article is go but as of right now, it's gotta go. OlYeller^Talktome 10:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
• KEEP I disagree that this article contains "no concrete citations" on subject. There are concrete citations in IMDb, Billboard and GNP, all of which contain "concrete references" on subject. As well, I disagree the performer does not make "unique and prolific contributions": The subject has notable accomplishments acknowledged by respected publications (IMDb, Billboard, LA Weekly). Also, it is simply not true that "other links do not mention the subject" (in addition to IMDb): listed articles DO contain multiple and specific references to Joe Morford as writer/director/musician e.g. Back Stage West article/review, just to mention one. Furthermore, I posted the article on Joe Morford with the required references; in some cases articles were only accessible through the "archive" process, starting at the main website, frankly, this is how I obtained the information. In certain cases, I contacted the given publication and requested cited article(s). And to that end, I do actually possess PDF articles referenced, which were obtained via this archive access and am happy to share them. This is the same way I had to obtain articles on "Jack Nicholson" for example, in the NYT. The main website page was where I started, but, I had to follow the relevant archive process based on that contact information. If I have to do that for Jack Nicholson, of course, I should expect to do it for a currently less-known personality. Simply because something is not easy to find does not mean it is not verifiable. And granted, a couple articles were not easy to obtain (as I had to request they be sent to me via email). Yet, in some cases this is the only way to get articles from certain publications; this does however, not render them any less true, or, important. More specifically, the Billboard magazine article(s)/award(s) can be referenced, but, there is no direct link to this type of archived article on ANYONE, these articles can be accessed by several methods, starting at the Billboard link/contact, link, listed. Billboard charts are accessible by year, but, awards are not. Other sites, where the link does not require accessing archived material does not require the archive access (IMDb, BackStageWest, etc) but, Billboard archives can only be accessed through the main website and subsequent archive requests; case in point, the Beatles charts are listed online, but go to Billboard and try to find specific awards per year, via a link ... there are none. They have to be followed-up via alternative methods; even where verifiable. I can provide specific contacts at Billboard; including archive requests emails. But, I should also say I obtained this through subject research beginning at website. It is available to anyone. Simply because the access is not immediate and easy does not mean it is non-existent, or not trustworthy. To that end, I do have a PDF of the Billboard magazine centerfold featuring Joe Morford and am happy to provide. Regarding IMDb, it should be said that IMDb does not simply allow writers/directors to post/list their work (like YouTube or MySpace). ALL writers/directors MUST BE nominated, invited and approved by the editors there before they can be listed on IMDb, which is the premiere film website, and accepted industry standard. Frankly, I know of no other writer/director who is listed as such on IMDb and NOT listed on Wikipedia -- Joe Morford would be the first such writer/director. Does anyone know of another? Again, let me say, I have copies of all articles listed, in PDF form. I am happy to provide them. These articles were obtained by our production company in vetting Joe Morford for a project. Every article listed has a corresponding photocopy PDF. That being said, I think Joe Morford plainly meets the burden of a verifiably notable personality. And lastly, the extent of my posting and response is that I have written this article. I feel Joe Morford is noteworthy, and this Wikipedia entry is, in part, intended to provide the access to relevant information we have gathered so that others may access this info when searching this known director/writer -- one of the fundamental features of Wikipedia. And certainly I take no offense to the comments, I believe the observations are made in good faith. Plus, it is helpful in forcing me to clarify this listing. And in respectful consideration of others feedback, I believe this personality deserves the listing.

Slagoog (talk) 21:56, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

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.