Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jay Jennings
 | This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2009 August 20. For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review. |
- 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. Consensus is measured by comapring arguments to policy not headcount. The issue here is notabiliy and that depends on sources. One keep vote notes that it may not be possible to find material to substantiate borderline notability and another is simply notability by assertion and has been discaded per WP:ATA. This leaves us with a vocal article writer who asserts notability through sources that are clearly not reliable and the mainstream references provided in the article are a) not linked to and b) apparantly about a film. Since this has been listed once with no avail I'm going to close this according to the policy based argument which is that noptability through solid multiple non-trivial sources has not been demonstrated for this article to meet our inclusion criteria - WP:BIO Spartaz Humbug! 05:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jay Jennings[edit]
- Jay Jennings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The find sources link above is misleading. Most people simply use a google web search.
Try "Jay Jennings Filmmaker" on a google web search, he's all over the first three pages, as is his film work.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Jay+Jennings+Filmmaker&btnG=Search&aq=f&oq=&aqi=
Try "Jay Jennings Knott's Berry Farm" on a google web search, the first four pages are nothing but him, his book, and the museum he curates.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Jay+Jennings+Knott%27s+Berry+Farm&btnG=Search&aq=f&oq=&aqi=
Timemachine1967 (talk) 20:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Subject is not notable per Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Creative professionals. Tempshill (talk) 21:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Jay Jennings has a notable profile on IMDB. If kept, this article will need to be reworked.keystoneridin! (talk) 21:46, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment- article has sources on the page. I have no use arguing with you on this subject, my vote stands.keystoneridin! (talk) 23:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, to address an earlier comment that states the Jay Jennings article slightly resembles that of a resume is blatantly false and anyone can see that by looking at the article. In fact, the article's format is very similar to that of Brett Ratner, The Hughes Brothers, Robert Rodriguez, and Quentin Tarantino. I don't see any comments about their articles looking anything close to a resume, so how can mine be? It's simply outrageous. (By the way "keystoneridin!", on your suggestion, I reworked the article a bit and cleaned it up once again).
Secondly, Jay Jennings is a writer-director in Hollywood, plus he's a known historian and author. All of these facts are backed up with footnotes and citations on the article, as well as, more sites which Wikipedia doesn't allow at this time. As far as the article goes, I have also received "Talk" messages of support from Wikipedia editors such as "Smallman12q" and "Cptnono" for continually updated and making the Jay Jennings article more informative and Wikipedia friendly.
Personally, I find this deletion motion to be tinged with mean-spiritness. Instead of welcoming new and acceptable articles (like mine) that contain the proper citations and footnotes, it seems more like an egotistical power play, when, in fact, Wikipedia's guidelines forbid any ill-will toward newbies.
To address 'Tempshill', your repeated statement that "this article lacks nobilty" has been proven to the contrary, as does your blase dismissal of the IMDB and apparantly any other reputable sites that are cited in the article. Why are you wasting your time on a matter which you are clearly wrong?
As far as: Wikipedia: Nobility (people) # Creative professionals goes:
Jay Jennings is a known figure in the realm of independent filmmaking. The very fact his numerous films are listed in The Internet Movie Database and that his films have been reviewed by multiple, reputable filmsites backs this up. What else do you need, a letter of recommendation from Orson Welles? Get real.
Jay Jennings is known for originating/being a part of the "on-the-move" guerilla filmmaking movement, which is also cited on multiple film review sites.
Jay Jenings created a significant/collective body of work, his various films for one, not to mention the fact, that he's just authored the first modern-day book about Knott's Berry Farm, Southern California's first amusement park.
Jay Jennings' work has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, i.e. The Knott's Berry Farm Museum, which showcases and displays hundreds of rare pieces of Knott's memorabila and ephemera, for which other amusement park scholars and theme park fans frequent on a daily basis. Obviously it is not the Smithsonian, but it still a significant museum, representing 90 years of Knott's Berry Farm history.
So, please, let's get off our high horses, shall we, and stop "picking on" the Jay Jennings article, which, by the way, follows Wikipedia's guidelines. I'm a newbie who joined a few days ago, get over it.
I have proven why the Jay Jennings article should not be considered for deletion. Any editor that thinks it is, in my humble opinion, is ignoring the facts (citations and footnotes) and would be considered jealous and vindictive.
Timemachine1967 (talk) 23:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. He's made a half dozen or so short films, and in about half of them he also plays a prominent part, but even IMDB doesn't link to a single external review. That signals not notable to me, absent significant evidence otherwise. If the book somehow does well he can be reconsidered -- but I recognize the cover format, and the publisher publishes thousands of short books of local interest, which are basically 100+ pages of photographs and 10-20 pages of text, typically by nn writers. It's telling that the publisher's online catalog doesn't even identify the authors in its standard listing [1]. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:43, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Great, another editor with a dislike for newbies, not to mention, a negative bias toward the IMDb. Arcadia is the biggest publisher of local history books in the world with a first-rate reputation and this 'Hullaballoo' simply dismisses it. I guess you'd dismiss Mark Twain if he wrote a book about Steamboats. Truly incomprehensible. Timemachine1967 (talk) 00:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have already expressed concerns over the resume like style of the article. This is based off little things that can hopefully be fixed and would be appropriate in another discussion. In regards to deletion, I recommend that Timemachine1967 takes a look at WP:CREATIVE to see if his work with Loanshark or anything else meet the criteria. If those are too restricting please also see if he meets the WP:ANYBIO or basic criteria. He looks close to me and I would be surprised if we could not find the coverage.Cptnono (talk) 01:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, the article I started looks nothing like a resume. The format is written the same way that Bret Rattner, The Hughes brothers, Robert Rodriguez and Quentin Tarantino's articles are written, that is in straightforward sentences detailing his work in chronological order, with film titles and brief bios, followed by a Filmography box and a resource list filled with legitimate footnotes and citations. This resume stuff is getting old. Secondly, I cited the article's WP:CREATIVE as being legitimate in my previous post. Thirdly, the article easily passes as a WP:ANYBIO, as Mr. Jennings, besides being a filmmaker, is a published author with a book about the history of Southern California's first amusement park, Knott's Berry Farm. Some of you editors are grasping at straws. You seem to turn a blind eye to articles you don't like. Isn't that against Wikipedia guidelines? How about I get an administrator who doesn't play favorites take a look at this and put this nit-picking to rest. Timemachine1967 (talk) 01:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On the advice of a few veteran Wikipedia editors, I have included a list of reputable and verifiable reference links to show the notability of the Jay Jennings' article (in case anyone still has any doubts). These references fall under the guidelines of WP:CREATIVE, WP:ANYBIO, and basic criteria. The references are on his Wikipedia 'reference list' on the bottom of the page, while others are simply listed here to further prove my case. If there are still any doubts after I patiently took the time to list these citations/links here, or if anyone downplays the significance of them, or completely ignores them, then it will be clearly evident that they really don't care about facts, citations, notability confirmation, or any other verification of the article, but only about advancing their own editor's status by unfairly deleting as many new articles as they can.
1. Jay Jennings at The Internet Movie Database
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0002772/
2. Loanshark at The Internet Movie Database
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0213061/
3. Loanshark Movie Review at FilmThreat.com (This is one of the more respected independent film sites for movie reviews)
http://filmthreat.com/index.php?section=reviews&Id=579/
4. Interview with Jay Jennings: Knott's Berry Farm Collector
http://ephemera.typepad.com/ephemera/2008/02/knotts-berry-fa.html
5. The Knott's Berry Farm Museum (Although this link is currently not permitted on Wikipedia, it still substantiates that Mr. Jennings is a Knott's historian and curator of this one-of-a-kind- museum; the only one of it's kind in the world. Without it, it would be nearly impossible to document a portion of Knott's Berry Farm's storied history)
http://www.knottsberryfarm.blogspot.com
6. Knott's Berry Farm: The Early Years at Arcadia Publishing (This link shows that Mr. Jennings has written the first book about Knott's Berry Farm in over 35 years, published by a reputable company that specializes in local history.
http://www.arcadiapublishing.com/mm5/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Product_Code=9780738569215&Store_Code=arcadia&search=knott%27s&offset=0&filter_cat=&PowerSearch_Begin_Only=&sort=name.asc&range_low=&range_high=
7. Jay Jennings Talks Knott's - An Interview on PBS station KOCE-TV (Although this link is currently not permitted on Wikipedia, this interview corroborates the fact that Mr. Jennings is one of the world's foremost experts on Knott's Berry Farm, having just authored his new book about the early history of Knott's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jESiJEODVY0
The next step would to be remove the unwarranted consideration for deletion notice atop of the Jay Jennings' article. Thank you. Timemachine1967 (talk) 04:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You've certainly typed a lot, but you still don't pass WP:CREATIVE, as I mentioned on your talk page. By the way, it's also not a great idea to remove editing templates placed by other editors. Tempshill (talk) 06:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep - I think this article needs some definite improvement to make Jay appear to be notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. While it appears that he is boarderline notable, I'm not sure if we can find enough material to substantiate this. I also am discouraged by (what appears to me) to be the argumentative nature of this editor who is taking ownership of this article. But I think there is hope. If consensus is to delete, I would recommend this article be moved into the userspace so it can be refined and then republished later - there is hope if more substance can be found. Tiggerjay (talk) 05:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think the concerns are bad enough to move it into a user space for editing. The concern I see is not having significant coverage form reputable secondary sources (a blog is not sufficient and IMDB as a source is disputed by some members of the community due to the nature of inclusions allowed) so I think it would take one decent article from a newspaper or magazine to greenlight it. Are there any reviews of his work in the LA Times or anything of that nature?
I adjusted the article, removing the filmography box, and keeping the films that could be footnoted and cited, in regards to what film festivals they screened at. The article looks cleaned up and more acceptable. After taking a look at it, perhaps you can remove the 'consideration for deletion' notice. Thanks. Timemachine1967 (talk) 09:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see the article has been cleaned up even more by other editor's. All the footnotes and citations are in place. His film Loanshark screened at one prominent film festival, while Tortured Soul screened at another. The Weird Museum screened at a well-known "Cult" film festival. The article even received a positive comment on the Talk page from 'Tempshill' who thinks it looks better. The only thing left is for the 'consideration for deletion' notice to be removed from the article. Thanks. Timemachine1967 (talk) 16:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Excuse me. You have implied something about my comment that is not there. Today's version of the article is "better", in that it is a little less resume-like and hagiographic; but the subject of the article still isn't sufficiently notable, based on WP:CREATIVE. Tempshill (talk) 05:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'Temphill', saying something looks better IS considered "positive". Now you want to twist your own words around to suit your own logic. Simply amazing. Not only that, you seem to have a major problem when verifiable citations of proof are presented to you. You seem to be in a constant state of denial when it comes to Mr. Jennings' notabilty, which has been cited and verified with 10 notable reference links including the IMDb, reputable film review sites, reputable film festival sites, and a reputable interview site. Then, five more newspaper references have cited Mr. Jennings' notabilty and they are five well-known newspapers in Southern California, including the L.A. Times. No matter how many reputable references are listed, it seems Mr. Jennings' well documented career does not interest you, let alone that a simple google web search of his name (with either the word(s) 'filmmaker' or 'Knott's Berry Farm') reveals the first 4 pages to be mostly devoted to him. I personally don't like diet soda, but millions of people do. This doesn't mean I would run around the city denying it's existence as I run pass one diet soda billboard after another. Timemachine1967 (talk) 23:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep More clean up is needed (when isn't it?) but notability has been established.Cptnono (talk) 18:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, 'Cptnono'. To address the concern of some editors regarding having significant coverage from reputable secondary sources (i.e., The L.A. Times), after considerable research I have added reputable newspaper articles about Jay Jennings to the reference section which should satisfy everyone. Now that reliable footnotes, citations, and secondary sources have been supplied, and notability has been established, I believe the 'consideration for deletion' notice should be removed from the article. Thank you. Timemachine1967 (talk) 19:07, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Assuming it is OK now, we have to wait for a disinterested party whith the standing to make the decision and, hopefully, close it out. It is an eye sore but it isn't a terribly long process. (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How an AfD discussion is closedCptnono (talk) 19:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The newpaper articles have been removed from the bottom of the page and instead have been added as inline citations in both the pre-existing and expanded text. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timemachine1967 (talk • contribs) 19:18, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I did sign my last comment. Apologies. Timemachine1967 (talk) 22:15, 14 August 2009 (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.