Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dianne Burnett

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Redirect to Mark Burnett#Personal life where sourced info on her life and work has been merged. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:59, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dianne Burnett[edit]

Dianne Burnett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As an actress or producer she clearly fails WP:ENT, and it doesn't look like she passes WP:GNG either. StAnselm (talk) 02:37, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 03:45, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 03:46, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 03:46, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 03:47, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. IMDB says she is the ex-wife of Mark Burnett, but this does not appear in either article, presumably because of a lack of reliable sources. StAnselm (talk) 03:59, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I dont understand. are you challenging her actual existence? She is the ex wife of Mark Burnett. What other proof is necessary?Sytable (talk) 07:04, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just because she is the ex-wife of Mark Burnett, it doesn't mean there should be an article about her. Notability is not inherited. StAnselm (talk) 08:15, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure the link to Independent Spirit Awards is correct? It won an "Independent Spirit Award" at the Santa Fe Film Festival, but that doesn't seem to be the same thing. In any case, I'm note sure how much credit the producer gets for any of this. IMDb credits the award as going to Craig Serling and Nicole Lonner. In regards to the critical reviews, we probably have the same WP:NOTINHERITED issue. StAnselm (talk) 10:47, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If not THE awards, it is AN award, and reflective of the film receiving recognition. With respects, you appear to be misapplying the essaay WP:NOTINHERITED, as it is intended more to speak toward how relationships between perople do not neccessaily created a shared notability. My point here is that the notability guideline WP:FILMMAKER specifcially states circumstances where significant involvement in the creation of a notable project does indeed show notability for those with such significant involvement. IE: "the person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant... work, that has been the subject of... multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Being both a film's producer and its executive producer can be argued as being significant to a film's creation. That same guideline also instructs that notability can be found if "the person's work has won significant critical attention." The film being recipient of critical commentary and review in multiple secondary sources, and also gaining the recognition and awards for its actors, are circumstances that could be seen as meeting guideline's instruction. Of course, such involvement in the project and the critical commentary and review of the project must naturally be verifiable. So, and contrary to some interpretations of the essay WP:NOTINHERITED, guideline WP:FILMMAKER instructs when the notability of the work may indeed be noitability for those who had significant involvement with the creation of of the project, and an essay rarely overrules guideline or policy. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:27, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it does come down to what "major role in co-creating" means. I was interpreting it to be the writer and the director rather than the producer. Hence, I was arguing that she fails WP:FILMMAKER, and that it was illegitimate to say "Burnett is notable because she produced an award-winning film." StAnselm (talk) 22:42, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Errr... not something I said, so please do not attribute it to me as if it were a quote. Without opining a delete OR a keep, what I did write is "she might be seen to meet WP:FILMMAKER through her works." I also spoke toward notability being possible if "the person's work has won significant critical attention," and addressed possible misapplication of an essay. Certainly it is easier to argue that writers and directors fall under WP:FILMMAKER, but there have been more cases than not where a producer was found to also meet that notability criteria. As for the significance of a producer's contributions to a film, the article on Producers Guild of America better defines their conributions, as a film is more than just its writing and directing. It must BE produced in order to BE a film. The PGA Awards given by that organization show that producers can and do make significant and recognized contibutions to a film's creation. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:40, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you had said that - I was responding to a hypothetical argument, explaining why I thought WP:NOTINHERITED might also apply to the film. StAnselm (talk) 00:43, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Accepted. Notability guideline specifically shows how that essay is inapplicable when considering WP:FILMMAKER. Better now to discuss whether a producer's contributions are considered significant to the production of a film or significant per recognition of those contributions. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:58, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (changing to Merge per Schmidt below)' The article leaves out a lot (out of date) and so does her IMDB page, but even with additional research she does not appear to be notable. She has appeared in stage plays at the local playhouse and in a minor role in a notable TV program, and she has produced one indy movie which has almost no presence online and which does not mention her at its IMDB page. (The movie does not appear to qualify as notable, having won one minor award and gotten almost no coverage in Reliable Sources.) So on its face the article does not make the case for notability. By her own account she has had had a few other parts; interestingly, her own blurb does not even mention the movie that some here find so important. The social media website she created, "The Other Side", does not appear to be notable. Her autobiography The Road To Reality has not garnered any coverage that I could find. (It's hard to search because the title is not unique.) All in all she does not seem to qualify under WP:CREATIVE, WP:AUTHOR, or WP:GNG. --MelanieN (talk) 15:48, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:CREATIVE, WP:AUTHOR, and WP:FILMMAKER are the same thing... and all dictate that notability might be found if "the person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant... work, that has been the subject of... multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" and/or if "the person's work has won significant critical attention." While nice to expound on what she has done that has not garnered attention, having one's work receive attention[1][2][3][4][5] does not mean that the filmmaker must also have attention. That's not how WP:FILMMAKER works. And that same website from which you decide "she has had had a few other parts", shares that as a producer she was instrumental to the creation of Eco-Challenge and Survivor, and gives links to numerous additional articles about these other works... locking WP:FILMMAKER in a bit stronger. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 08:27, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need to keep quoting the same policies and citing the same links; I heard you the first time. Your contention appears to be that she is notable because she was the producer for a "significant work" or that her work has received "significant critical attention". I disagree with your assessment of the film Jam as significant - and I note that of the (few) places that do talk about the film, none of them mentions her at all. The "Independent Spirit Award" given to the film by the Santa Fe Film Festival specifically gives the award to Craig Serling and Nicole Lonner, the screenwriters. The film's IMDB site does not mention her, except to credit "Burnett Entertainment" as one of the film's three production companies; that does not sound like her contribution to the film was major; it certainly doesn't make her "the Producer" as the article claims. The links you keep citing are not from independent reliable sources, such as newspapers; they are from various websites, of the type which review every film that comes down the pike, regardless of the "significance" or not of the film. (BTW they all pan the film.) Apparently not a single newspaper saw fit to review this film, so I find it hard to think of it as "significant". And that "same website" which I referred to and you quoted back at me - did you not notice that it is her own website, dianneburnett.com - not an independent source? Yes, it claims that she was "instrumental in the process" that led to Survivor and "a collaborator" in Eco-Challenge, but I could find no independent confirmation of that large claim - just self-referential sources. Even what looks like an independent source on the subject turns out to be quoting her claiming she played a role. There is no independent verification. So I decided that this person does not meet WP:FILMMAKER (for lack of significance of the one work she is known to have had some connection with, and lack of verification of the other things she claims). I then looked to see if she might qualify as notable under some other guideline, such as for her book or for general notability, but found that she does not. Hence my Delete !vote, which I reaffirm. --MelanieN (talk) 00:50, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Without having offered an !vote in either direction (yet), my "contention" is that guideline requires reasonable and common sense application, and essays should not be mis-applied or mis-interpreted. Inre: my comments originally addressed an improper application of an essay and then spoke toward application of WP:FILMMAKER toward a creator's work not demanding that an individual creator himself recieve personal coverage.
An award given to participants in an idie film, no matter who they were, shows that the film had received recognition through recognition of those participants. Further, a film's coverage need not itself be positive, as long as it is in an independent reliable source.
Pointing out IMDB's limitations is not a convincing argument, as IMDB is not accepted as being either reliable or all-encompassing, though it is a decent jumping-off point for further rsearch.
And, as you were the one who directed attention to the producer's website as if it showed she did little of worth, I felt it important for balance and for other's understanding to point out that it did quite the opposite through its offering of links to multiple independent secondary sources covering other projects with which she had significant influence. IE: The fact that she is founder and president of the entity Burnett Entertainment underscores, and does not detract from, the involvelment of she and her corporate entity in the creation of notable productions. Another plus on the side of WP:CREATIVE.
And with respects, your personal opinion about DVD Talk and DVD Verdict runs contrary to established consensus that they are independent and reliable secondary sources for independent films, no matter how they decided that a film might be were worth reviewing. Guideline does not demand that all indie films be reviewed by newspapers nor that such reviews be positive. But editors might appreciate, and even if dismissive of her work with the indie film Jam, the productions Eco-Challenge and Survivor have been the recipients of significant coverage as well. And yes, while it is her own site that offers the links to these articles, we judge the linked articles themselves, not where the links were archived. And before you go there, a claim that her entity's involvement was not significant to the creation of notable projects would be akin to claiming that Warner Bros. or MGM involvements were not significant to production of their own many notable projects simply beacuse other companies also had involvement in those productions. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:09, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I certainly agree that Survivor and Eco-Challenge are notable and significant. If she actually was instrumental in creating them, she would be notable. But we have only her own say-so for that. Do any of those links provide any independent confirmation that she, or her production company, had anything at all to do with those shows? Survivor lists Mark Burnett as executive producer; she is not mentioned anywhere that I could find. Likewise, Eco-Challenge seems to be credited entirely to Mark Burnett as creator; I could find no mention of her involvement, except out of her own mouth. --MelanieN (talk) 05:49, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. And yes, please do "find sources" for Burnett Entertainment. Look, for example, at the company's IMDB page, which lists only Jam, and says nothing about Survivor or Eco-Challenge. --MelanieN (talk) 05:53, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. And before you tell me again that the creator of a notable work does not have to prove separate notability: I am not talking here about notability, but about verifiability. If the things she claims could be verified, she would be notable. However, I could find absolutely no independent verification that she played a major role (or any role) in the creation of those two TV programs. --MelanieN (talk) 20:32, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
INDB is not a reliable source. Its lacking information does not mean the information is not verifiable elsewhere. And certainly she seems to herself speak about her contributions, and even though the headlines are stolen by her more pressworthy ex-husnband, her contributions to Survivor and Eco-Chalenge can be verified away from Burnett herself: In the text of an article about Jam, Splash Magazine states "Burnett Entertainment ("Survivor") was behind the production", connecting Burnett Entertainment with Survivor. The government of the city of Malibu expands on that conection. In a biography included in an agenda report, created independently of Ms Burnett, and in preparation of the 2004 Malibu Marathon, the city wrote "...Dianne Burnett, was one of the creators of Eco-'Challenge, an adventure race produced in various countries and broadcast around the world." The govenment created bio also states "In 1999, Dianne assisted her husband Mark in creating the hit reality T.V. series Survivor." In the book Survivor: the ultimate game ISBN 1575001438, Mark Burnett himself acknowledges his then wife's part in the creation of Survivor. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:37, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The unconnected dots are now connected. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:37, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Anybody who could believe for a minute that that biography, attached as an appendix to the Malibu council report, was "created independently of Ms. Burnett" - well, let's just say I know enough about how governments work to know that nobody in the Malibu government sat down and researched her life story to create an independent biography. City staff would routinely just attach the bios that are sent to them. And that is confirmed on page 2 of the report, where it says "Resumes or biography of the primary staff of Malibu Marathon LLC have been provided and are attached to this report." In other words, that is still just Ms. Burnett herself talking. But I'd love to see the actual quote from Mark Burnett's book, which could definitely settle this issue; any chance of that? Or at least, can you tell us how you know that his book says this, how you found it out? I'm not trying to be stubborn here, or to insist that she DIDN'T have a role in creating the programs. I'm just still looking for any independent confirmation that she did. And so far I haven't seen it. --MelanieN (talk) 03:56, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. She or her production company may have worked on notable projects, but there's not enough coverage in independent reliable sources to make her notable. Lagrange613 (talk) 07:18, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Pardon, Lagrange613... Let me pin this down. Do you feel the multiple available sources do not show notability for Eco-Challenge[6] and Survivor[7] or that multitude of sources do not reflect these works having "won significant critical attention"? Or is it that as founder and president of Burnett Entertainment, you do not feel she and her Burnett Entertainment "created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant... work, that has been the subject of... multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" ? If all that is needed is to connect the production company with its productions, each episode lists Burnett Entertainment in its onscreen credits. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:37, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, do you think I'm arguing that Survivor isn't notable? (No cheating by checking whether I've nominated Survivor (TV series) for deletion.) Without comment on whether Burnett Entertainment is notable, notability is not inherited. Working for a notable company does not make one notable. Let's see the significant coverage of Dianne Burnett, not her company, in independent, reliable sources. Lagrange613 (talk) 07:06, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Per WP:CREATIVE, if Burnnet created or had a major role in creating something notable, then through verifiability that she did so, she can be determined as notable without personally having wide personal coverage. This applies to her having a significant role in the creation of notable films or television programs OR her founding a notable company. The essay WP:INHERITED is not intended to over-rule guideline. And while simply "working" for a notable company may be notable, being the founder and president of a notable company certainly can. Again, and per guideline, she need not personally meet the GNG if her creations otherwise do. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:45, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:11, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • A personal meeting, or not, of the GNG is not the deciding guideline. Her projects per WP:CREATIVE do not fail GNG. If a person is determined notable under CREATIVE, the person does NOT also have to have extensive personal coverage, just so long as the results of their creativity DO, and the involvement is verifiable. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:06, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter (talk) 15:32, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Summary OK, here's where we stand. She claims to have been an important factor in the creation of two notable TV series, Survivor and Eco-Challenge. (That claim is not found in the article, but it is found on her webpage and has been raised here.) However, we have not been able to find any independent confirmation of that claim; all the sources we can find for it trace back directly to her. Now, it's entirely possible that she DID have such an influence; she was married to Mark Burnett and living with him at the time both series were created. However, it appears that any input from her was undocumented and uncredited. She herself seems to admit that her contributions to the series are not documented in the public record, when she describes herself (in talking about her autobiography) as "feeling profoundly betrayed as her contributions to the Mark Burnett 'empire' are marginalized to the point of zero recognition." With "zero recognition" of her alleged contributions to the shows, we can't consider them in evaluating her. (As they say in many professions, "if it wasn't written down, it didn't happen." Or as the Wikipedia essay says, WP:Verifiability, not truth.) And if we set aside those two series for lack of confirmation, her entire claim to notability is tied to the indy film Jam. Based on WP:FILMMAKER her notability depends on the answers to two questions: Is Jam "a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews"? And was her contribution to the film significant enough that she can be described as its "creator"? (The actual criterion is "created, or played a major role in co-creating", the significant work.) That has been discussed at some length above. My answer to the first question was "no" and the second "maybe, but it doesn't matter if the film doesn't qualify." Other opinions may differ. --MelanieN (talk) 05:41, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • This has been a terrific discussion. Thank you all. If her assertion is true that her ex was dismissive of her efforts in co-creating projects, then it must have been an acrimonious divorce... and a shame that she came out so poorly. At least she maintains the reins of Burnett Enterprises, and it is hoped that she steps out of his shadow for more than just a creating a social media website to promote the works of self-proclaimed psychics Sylvia Browne and Jonathan Edwards. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:26, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Delete and set a redirect to and encourage expansion of Dianne in the article about her ex at Mark Burnett#Personal life, where startingly, she has absolutely no mention other than her name as an ex-wife in the infobox. She IS the founder and president of the Burnett Enterprises with which Mark (and allegedly she) created projects. Leaving her in his article as only a name is a dis-service to readers who may wish to know more about Mark's formative years as a producer. I also suggest allowing recreation/undletion of the article at whatever future point when she has more coverage to verify her participation in the creation of the other aforementioned "notable productions". Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:26, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's a very good approach. Can we merge the image and links in there too? Stuartyeates (talk)
As the image is on the commons, as soon as we have content of her in the Mark article, a thumbnail would make sense. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 08:49, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good idea, Schmidt, and a good solution to this situation. (I love it when long discussions wind up with consensus!) But the proper action is not "delete and redirect"; it is "merge and redirect". That keeps the information and links in the redirected page history, for anyone to use in merging to the Mark article - and it leaves the page itself (as a redirect) for possible restoration if she becomes more notable later. --MelanieN (talk) 15:30, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If independent reliable sources later demonstrate notability I would support the restoration of any content supported by those sources. Lagrange613 (talk) 16:40, 28 September 2011 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dianne_Burnett&oldid=1080251553"