Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Ledes


 * 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. § FreeRangeFrog croak 18:42, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Richard Ledes

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Overly detailed promo-vehicle. Fails WP:GNG. The Banner talk 08:41, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Could you explain to me why this article is promotional and why overly-detailed is a bad thing? I'd like to change it so the article can be kept. I am new to wikipedia. Thank you. Soundisimportant (talk) 11:43, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I've done some changes to the article to what might be considered promotional. Please review. Soundisimportant (talk) 11:57, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the edits but it does not change my opinion. Especially the overly detailed descriptions of his documentaries (not even feature films) are problematic. Did he make any feature firms? Then please state this clearly (possibly splitting the filmography in feature films and documentaries). The lead is too short and does not summarize the article. But most deadly is the lack of any sources in the section background (that reads as a biography). The Banner talk 14:51, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Working on it to make it more clear. These are all feature films, not documentaries (except for last entry into "career" section. Soundisimportant (talk) 01:20, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Please keep I've removed press release sources and sources associated with the artist (such as websites dedicated to artist work). Rest of the sources are: NYtimes, Slantmagazine, avclub, filmmakermagazine, seattletimes, hollywood reporter, LA Times, variety, tribecafilm.Soundisimportant (talk) 13:20, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 2 June 2014 (UTC)


 * KeepDirected notable movies The Caller and A Hole in One, ergo meets WP:CREATIVE. They may not have been great movies, but Rotten Tomatoes indicates that they were widely reviewed. --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:17, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep per Colapeninsula. But yeah this article needs some serious work. I have added a bunch of tags. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:16, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep I have replaced all bare links with cite web. Did a few other edits and longer lead. Soundisimportant (talk) 15:24, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I've addressed all the issues stated in the head notice Keep Soundisimportant (talk) 14:36, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I am striking the Keep !votes after your first. Editors are welcome to comment as much as they like in an AfD discussion, but we !vote only once. On a side note, thanks for the edits. The article is looking a bit better. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:42, 4 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Got it. Thank you. Soundisimportant (talk) 15:03, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Added more citations to biographical entry. Soundisimportant (talk) 13:47, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I have addressed the issues in the header. Any other suggestions? Thank you. Soundisimportant (talk) 15:57, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * When the movies are notable, you should write separate articles for them. Not use a misleading internal link to point to them. The Banner talk 16:03, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Article definitely needs some work but subject is notable and well sourced. We need to significantly trim down the page and cut out a lot of the unnecessary content. Meatsgains (talk) 06:57, 9 June 2014 (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.