Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephanie Bennett

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. Cirt (talk) 02:07, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Bennett[edit]

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

Film producer written up by someone with an obvious COI, No evidence of notabilty. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 00:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How would I provide evidence of notability? --Kibadunno (talk) 00:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can get Taylor Hackford to contact you, if you need credibilty. Please leave your contact info. --Kibadunno (talk) 01:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oy vey: We don't need phone calls, what is meant by "notability" is usually proof of the significance of the person, such as by newspaper articles and other coverage of them, and adding those references to the article. As written, it sounds like an advertisement, not a neutral article.--Milowent (talk) 06:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I took a quick stab at reworking the text, as most of it was a blockquote from her website. A few of these items she has worked on do appear notable, but I didn't dig yet for any coverage about her specifically.--Milowent (talk) 06:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Author admits to COI. I have explained the lack of notability and such. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It seems she has been writen of in multiple reliable sources [1] [2] since at least 1984... and was even nominated for a Grammy. Further research will discover if any of her other productions won awards. But meeting WP:GNG would seem to be a keeper. Time to send this one to WP:CLEANUP now that it belongs to Wikipedia. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:22, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 10:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Marginally notable, but on the side of inclusion. This article definately needs to be reworked by editors without a COI; I'd suggest Kibadunno stay away from the article. Angryapathy (talk) 16:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Grammy nominee [3], other significant credits. Several of the projects she produced are hugely notable and quite influential. Obviously satisfies the GNG and (probably) multiple specialized guidelines. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Excellent credits. This person is the real thing and very clearly belongs in Wikipedia, due to significant cultural contributions. It's up to us to provide whatever citations as are necessary. Deletion in this case would be a travesty, IMHO. Rudybowwow (talk) 21:42 11 November 2009 (UTC)

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.