Talk:Jesse Richards

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

VfD debate[edit]

This page was nominated for deletion and survivied because no consensus to delete was reached. The archived deletion debate can be found at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Jesse Richards -- Francs2000 | Talk 01:19, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I also saw this page nominated for deletion several years back, and I must admit, it seems to be little more than a brilliant effort at self promotion. Oddly, whenever there is a movement for deletion (I've been keeping my eye on this page since 2005), a chorus of wikipedians jumps to his defense with the same rhetoric and accusations. Of course, my current contention that "there's something really fishy about this page" is certainly not grounds for deletion, but a dedicated perusal of the sources cited clearly shows Jesse Richards as a peripheral member of the "Stuckist" art movement who managed to get modest press coverage through brazen acts of self-promotion. Could it be that wikipedia has formed part of this equation?

Over the last 6 years, Jesse Richards and/or remodernist film have been linked in countless pages related to film, art, etc., from 'Stanley Kubrick' to 'Important people from New Haven, CT', a clear abuse of this website and its stated mission. What's more, this article's word count is actually more than the sum of its sources (the parts that mention Jesse Richards, of course). As for the sources, they seem to contain every passing reference to Jesse Richards ever posted to the internet (several links are broken). Again, I understand these are not grounds for deletion and don't intend this post to be libelous. I have nothing against, Jesse Richards, know nothing about him other than what is written on this entry, and have no feelings whatsoever about his art, but this simply needs to be put on the table for discussion as it has been brought up time and time again and never resolved. (talk) 02:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the comment above. this page is written in a way that everything fits, more or less, into Wikipedia's rules, but still it gives an impression of someone much more important to the filmmakers community than he really is. At first this page made me believe Jesse was recognized as a key figure of contemporary cinema, but when one checks the sources it becomes clear that the greatest recognition this guy has ever achieved is from an extinct website (The, a social network for aspiring filmmakers, which then turned into - where Jesse is no more than a regular user), as well as a SINGLE tweet Roger Ebert once did refering superficially to the so-called Remodernist Film movement. Even Bela Tarr's connection to the movement is not clear, and it seems that the Tarr is being used mainly to promote the reputation of the movement. Still everything is "a-OK" under the Wikiédia guidelines, but please let's have some critical sense here, otherwise this website is certainly going to be a host for more "groundbreaking obscure filmmakers" with popularity and recognition built on the internet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:04, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

New York International Independent Film and Video Festival[edit]

Is this listed under another name on Film festivals in North and Central America? If not, it should be listed on that page.

Tyrenius 16:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Neutral description of work[edit]

It is difficult to describe Richards' work with neutral language. Can someone take a crack at it? Arturobandini (talk) 21:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

That would be original research and hence not allowed. If a reliable source says something, that can be used, or if Richards has a statement about his work, a short extract can be used (and referenced). Have a look at this interview.[1] Ty 04:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)