Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jenni Olson
- 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. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 05:35Z
Jenni Olson[edit]
User:Rossami prodded the article, and whilst clearing the backlog I disagreed and removed the tag. But fair play, I reckon both positions should be heard and afd is the best place for that. Rossami prodded it with the reasons:
The article does not demonstrate that the subject meets Wikipedia's generally accepted criteria for inclusion of biographies.
- The article claims that the subject is "one of the world's leading experts on GLBT cinema" but does not substantiate that claim. No sources are provided to allow any other editor to confirm the claim.
- Authoring a book with a current Amazon sales ranking of > 300,000 is not considered sufficient to meet the inclusion standards. (Note: This author has published a second book but its sales ranking is even worse, currently standing at > 877,000.)
- Producing a single movie is also not generally considered to be sufficient to support an article.
Now I think the biographical details listed at this bio are probably enough to merit inclusion. I take Rossami's points, but I think once you consider that whilst each individual claim itself seems minor, their sum is greater and allows more merit. Note the above linked bio claims the subject has been "profiled, interviewed, photographed, and reviewed in scores of periodicals including The New York Times, The Village Voice, Variety, The Hollywood Reporter, Entertainment Weekly, Out Magazine, The Advocate, The Los Angeles Times, and Time International." It also claims the subject has written for "such periodicals as Out Magazine, The Advocate, Filmmaker, Girlfriends, Curve, and The Bay Area Reporter". Anyway, that's the cases for and against so far. It'd be nice to have someone with US newspaper access chip in on whether the press coverage is substantial and would allow the article to be improved. The best I get in a British library search is a usage of the book The Ultimate Guide to Gay and Lesbian Film and Video as a source: "A recent book calling itself The Ultimate Guide to Gay and Lesbian Film and Video, by the American Jenni Olson, ignored Pasolini's films altogether, yet included Ostia" ("Dangerous liaisons" The Independent (London); Jun 5, 1997; Roger Clarke; p. 10.) I also think the incoming links to the article merit a look, they indicate to me that there is some substance to the subject as an article. Thanks for reading and appreciate the thoughts. Hiding Talk 16:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Hiding did an excellent job of explaining my rationale. I have nothing to add to the above except a thank you to Hiding for the polite notification of the debate. Rossami (talk) 19:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for all of Rossami's original prod reasons, as well as for having no WP:RS, WP:V, etc. Valrith 22:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as it stands, tons of claims - no citation/verification of them. The listing in IMDB is nice, but doesn't vouch for notariety. SkierRMH 03:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite[edit]
I'm pulling down a rewrite, halfway there, so I hope people will revise their opinions in the wake of this rewrite, which I hope addresses all concerns. Hiding Talk 14:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Okay, Olson has been noted as writing an historically valuable book, her film has received good reviews and three awards, as well as having cultural impact with regards the Golden Gate Bridge, whilst her roles as a festival curator and founder, website founder and maintainer, collector and her importance to her field have all been established through verifiable citations in reliable sources. I would hope people will now reconsider their opinions. Hiding Talk 17:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - There are plenty of references now - however the massive amount of red-links should really disappear. SkierRMH 19:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, not a mainstream director/producer but has caused some notable head-turning Alf photoman 22:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Based on the rewrite, I'll change my opinion to an abstain. It still seems like a borderline case to me but it's clearly well sourced now. Rossami (talk) 05:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Looking at the article in the state it was before the AfD, I think a case might have been made even though she had two non-vanity press books and a film at Sundance. Now, I don't think it's even a question. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:11, 21 December 2006 (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.