Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anna Wilding (director)

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. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:04, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Wilding (director)[edit]

[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)

I have been working on cleaning this article up as most of it was unreferenced, or referenced to press releases and promotional materials. I've added some reliable references but noticed there is barely any substantial reliable sources. I went to move it to Anna Wilding and noticed the article had been deleted several times before, and has been salted. -- haminoon (talk) 03:09, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

pinging User:Swatjester and User:Jreferee per WP:SALT -- haminoon (talk) 19:48, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:11, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:11, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think there is enough to reach the notability treshhold, but the article is poor and needs a rewrite. The is more online about her on a number of reliable sites - although there is also a lot of self promotion which is logical NealeFamily (talk) 08:47, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

:* KeepI also think it should be kept, just needs a re-write. As for the previous deletions and SALT under Anna Wilding, those are from 2007, 2011 then Salted in 2012. A lot appears to have happen since then including being a White House correspondent/photographer of Obama and her national solo photography exhibit on him. Think she meets WP:GNG for stuff shes done, so it just needs to be fixed and then an eye kept on it to stop it becoming promotional again, instead of actually being deleted. NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 10:36, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken, but please note that it was not a national exhibition. Some of the claims that previously appeared on the article are pretty wild. -- haminoon (talk) 19:52, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

True and I should have been more careful looking into it but it does appear that is more the issue with the article than it needing to be deleted.NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 20:05, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am less and less sure now going through the article that she is notable and more that she is just excellent at getting into the papers. About the best things she has done was the White House photographer and the one film and I originally said she was notable under WP:GNG but am now changing my vote to delete instead after going through each reference more carefully.NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 10:32, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:53, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep obviously notable - the quality of the article is not grounds for deletion. This article has been the subject of excessive templates and vandalism and still contains far too many "citation required". This should be a "SNOW". The purpose of templates is to identify a number of areas for improvement but this article has a fact, followed by a reference, followed by "citation required". The article could be improved by removing even more of these templates as well as improving an emphasis on facts. Victuallers (talk) 12:58, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I don't think she meets the notability bar, including as a photographer. I don't have any objection to un-salting the original page if the outcome of this is to keep; however I suspect you'll end up running into the same vandalism issues if it is kept. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 23:25, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think there is sufficient coverage, particularly around her book of photographs. For that alone is sufficient to establish notability. The article needs copy-edited. scope_creep^Talk 11:35, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Extra consensus, noting one user has changed their view on keeping the article
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 07:47, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the person is well covered in media and her contribution to the film industry is quite notable. --Synhuliak (talk) 09:00, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Week Keep it seems like she's covered in the media enough to be notable. Although, it's pretty borderline and the sourcing generally isn't that great IMO. Hence why it's a weak keep. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:14, 14 October 2020 (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.