Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Max Hechtman (3rd nomination)

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. ✗plicit 23:58, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Max Hechtman

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This has been sitting in my watchlist for a long time. It reads very much like a vanity puff piece, and I really don't think the general notability guideline has been met. There's a ton of sourcing, but it's almost all primary (film festivals posting their showing lists, alumni newsletters) or local news coverage from Long Island (LI Herald and Newsday.) Other sources are non-notable blogs (such as DriveMusicMedia which appears to just be attempts at notability laundering random people.) No major in-depth coverage from more clearly notable publications is found. There's a clear likely undisclosed conflict of interest with the main author, User:HM2021, and I think it's a WP:TNT case here even if the notability wasn't in question. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 21:25, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dratify. This filmmaker may become more notable in the future given that he has future projects in the works in the DriveMusicMedia interview. We can't just erase all of this like he does not exist. Plus many of the sources featured no longer appear in Google search results on him and it would be a shame to lose all of this information. HM2021 (talk) 21:40, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and New York. Shellwood (talk) 21:57, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt I took a stab at digging through the 62 sources, and there really isn't a lot in the way of WP:SIRS. It's a lot of school publications, social media posts, program listings, some interviews, some reviews in unreliable sources (like this publication is literally PR). I think the best available sources toward WP:GNG are the profiles by local newspapers, which are mostly run-of-the-mill coverage that don't do a good job of asserting notability as a filmmaker. hinnk (talk) 10:21, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I read what "WP:SALT" is and it says you want to permanently erase his existence online? You're insane. The article says he's working hard to make it in the industry and deserves to be seen. Why do we need to say the opposite? HM2021 (talk) 13:52, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Creation protection isn't permanent. An admin could carry out a request to remove the protection, and until that happened, it would prevent a sixth version of this article from being added. hinnk (talk) 21:08, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete per nom Shaahaajaahaan (talk) 12:50, 9 July 2025 (UTC)~~ — Shaahaajaahaan (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Aniruddhchaudhuy (talk · contribs). [reply]

What happens if he gets a winning film at Sundance and there's then significant coverage on him? Then the article can never be recreated using the information already there? Crazy. HM2021 (talk) 14:23, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A theoretical future article where the filmmaker has an indisputable award win and notable coverage would not look much like this article, since there would be much better sources said article could rely on. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 14:42, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a free web host for promotional autobiographies. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:41, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fuck me, the level of narcissism is overwhelming.[1], [2], [3], [4], [5] ad nauseam. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:21, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete: Per Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs and duffbeerforme. I've been cleaning up this user's edits for the last 2 years. They may need to be blocked from editing film articles. This is the most engaged I have seen this user, who rarely even uses edit summaries. Mike Allen 20:39, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think that might be a good idea - this is so overwhelmingly promotionally written and the editor just doesn't seem to get why there's an issue - or why their sourcing has issues or that we can't keep articles based on uncertain future notability. It puts every single edit they've made into question. I've mentioned this on the short's AfD, but they may even have put some of the articles they've touched into risk of deletion as well. For example, the Long Island International Film Expo has a lot of the same issues as this article as far as sourcing goes. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 21:29, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I copied all the data from the article so the information isn't lost and it can be merged with the more reliable/significant coverage in the theoretical future article when that's eventually created later on down the line as the info in this will still be useful (his education, filmmaking approach, personal life, accolades/non-filmmaking honors, etc.). HM2021 (talk) 13:16, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
’’’Delete’’’ - self-promotion. Llajwa (talk) 00:49, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence of notability. Barry Wom (talk) 04:57, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The guy just isn't notable and I'll be honest - this is so spammy and promotional that it could qualify for speedy deletion. A lot of this feels like the claims have been puffed up to be more major than they are, even if we were to consider every source usable. I mean, it's nice that he donated books during high school, but the article doesn't need an entire paragraph to say something that could be established in a sentence like "Hechtman has participated in philanthropy, encouraging childhood literacy." That's all. There's also no need to make mention of video/photo montages - that's not something Wikipedia considers notable. It's a nice gesture, but not really noteworthy. Also, the use of the term "cameo role" in relation to the Ben Platt concert film makes it appear like he was specially chosen and highlighted - like say, Stan Lee in the MCU films. I don't see evidence to suggest that this was the case or even what his role in the concert was - for all we know, he could have been an audience member, someone who did some stage hand work and happened to be caught on camera, or interviewed in a "Random Fan #35" context. That's not the type of thing to include unless you can specify what his role was and have sourcing to back it up.

IF this guy passes notability guidelines in the future this article should not be based on the way it currently looks. That would just run a serious risk of it getting deleted as a spam/promotional page. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 21:23, 14 July 2025 (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.