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. - Mailer Diablo 09:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mo Abersheid

[edit]

Non-notable independent filmmaker. His sole claim to fame is that one of his films (also nominated) appeared in a film festival held by the IDA (which itself doesn't even have a Wikipedia page yet). While perhaps winning an IDA award might be a valid indicator of notability, simply being shown (like hundreds of other films shown by other organizations) is no more than a proof of existence. There are 0 reviews or other critical reaction to report on, seemingly.

He's also a self-published poet. That's nice, but not even close to notable in the field. Lastly, there are major conflict of interest problems everywhere here, along with a style of writing reminiscent of advertising - the article was originally created by a User:Writermo1, and the IP address which removed the prod claimed to be Mr. Abersheid on the talk page. SnowFire 22:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 07:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both per nom; nonnotable and COI. YechielMan 23:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete delete delete - nom pretty much says it all. Irretrievably OR. Feeeshboy 00:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing asserted remotely notable. NBeale 06:55, 1 May 2007 (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.