Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ross Grayson Bell


 * 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 and redirect to Fight Club. Very little evidence of passing GNG, as pointed out by Delete voters, so I suggest a redirect to the film is in order. This does look like a BLP that SHOULD have a lot more coverage, but without significant third party coverage, policy says that it should not stand on its own. Black Kite (talk) 23:34, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Ross Grayson Bell

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Delete. WP:BLP, only marginally more substantial than "Ross Grayson Bell is a person who exists", about a film producer. He produced one of the most famous films of the past 20 years, so the notability claim is definitely there in theory -- but what it isn't is reliably sourced to media coverage about him: the sole reference here is a primary source press release announcing that he was giving a talk. According to his IMDb profile he hasn't produced a film since 2001, so needless to say he doesn't Google well; reliable sources might certainly exist in databases I don't have access to, but I can find nothing on my own that constitutes the kind of sourcing needed to salvage it. He does not inherit a "no valid sourcing required" freebie just because there's a famous film title involved, and we do not keep badly sourced articles just because better sourcing might exist somewhere; we keep badly sourced articles only if and when it can be definitively shown that the sourcing needed to repair them does exist. So no prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can do better than this, but this as written simply isn't even close to good enough. Bearcat (talk) 07:13, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete a non-notable film producer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:46, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:00, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:56, 3 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Looks like lots of WP:RS to me.  Please try clicking on the books and scholar, high beam.  For example, in this book, he gets an entire chapter.  The movie even has entire book(s) written about it .  He seems quite notable.,  please consider the sources I just mentioned. --David Tornheim (talk) 11:31, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * In all of those search locations, I just see a lot of glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage that's fundamentally about the film rather than about him. That's not what we're looking for, however — to count toward WP:GNG, a source has to contain significantly more information about him than just mentioning his name a single time. Basically, all those sources do is confirm that he exists — but not a single one of them enables us to add any more substance to the article beyond nominally verifying that he exists. Bearcat (talk) 16:34, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that many of the sources are as you say--just a listing of the key players with him on that line. However, some of the sources, such as those I mentioned, have much more substance.  I agree with  that the film is of such significance that being the producer of it is sufficient to make him notable.  I do think the amount of material in the article might be someone limited based on the sources I identified, but even if the article is short, the producer passes WP:GNG. --David Tornheim (talk) 05:10, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The only source you offered above which is about him, in anything more than a "glancing acknowledgement of his existence" sort of way, is a Q&A interview in which he's talking about himself in the first person. That's a type of source that is subject to the same problems as self-published sourcing, because people can and do make inflated or inaccurate claims about themselves — so it can be used for supplementary confirmation of stray facts after he's already been sourced over GNG by better sources, but it cannot bring the GNG in and of itself as an article's only substantive "more than just a namecheck" source. Bearcat (talk) 22:18, 5 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. Producing even one film can be enough if its a famous film, as is the case here.  DGG ( talk ) 04:25, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Not if you can't source him over WP:GNG to more than just glancing namechecks of his existence, it isn't. Bearcat (talk) 16:07, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  J 947  18:50, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep: passes WP:NDIRECTOR and WP:GNG.  Dr Strauss   talk  18:56, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Passes GNG how and where? Bearcat (talk) 22:18, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:47, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Here's apparently the subject of a chapter, here. But that really does seem to be it as far as significant coverage. No major awards. Delete. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:13, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect to Fight Club. There's no there, there! The "article" is an orphan and it consists of two short simple sentences and one empty section: as the nominator says, it's only marginally more substantial than "Ross Grayson Bell is a person who exists". A stub this thin is much better off as a redirect, if even that is needed. Bishonen &#124; talk 21:53, 20 March 2017 (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.