Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zeinabu irene Davis

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, and much cleaner now. Mojo Hand (talk) 04:24, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zeinabu irene Davis[edit]

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

I'm a bit on the fence with this because there doesn't seem to many significant, notable and solid sources. News mostly finds passing mentions over the years, Books found the most out of all my searches, several at Highbeam, thefreelibrary (the best link is probably this which lists awards). IMDb also lists some of her awards here. Searches at some of the newspapers listed found passing mentions here, here and here while Newspapers Archive only found this. The article obviously needs a rewrite but I'm not sure how much will remain afterwards and considering there aren't that many good sources. SwisterTwister talk 23:40, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:14, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:14, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:14, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. While I agree with the nominator above, generally, I own a print source entitled Women Film Directors: An International Bio-critical Dictionary by film scholar Gwendolyn Audrey Foster (a radical feminist viewpoint). Foster devotes two solid pages to Davis. In addition, Foster points to further sources on Davis -- don't know if these are accessible online -- but articles in the Village Voice entitled "Exile and Cunning" (Jan 13 1987) page 68. An article in Angles: Women Working in Film and Video 1.2 Winter 1992, 6-9, 22, by Ann Filemyr, entitled Zeinabu Irene Davis: Filmmaker, Teacher with a Powerful Mission. At the same time, I don't think this filmmaker has any mainstream activity, or how much influence there has been, but I think there has been influence. And, I strongly agree with nominator that the current article is seriously bloated with fluff and junk and I'm almost in favor of deletion for that reason alone, although I know it's not a valid reason. Hope this helps.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:46, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (interact) @ 15:12, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep The subject of the article is notable -- the article needs work. I did some editing to fix some poorly written areas. Now what is needed is to eliminate some of the cruft. I don't know if I'll have time to do a thorough job, but I've started some of that. LaMona (talk) 17:39, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:47, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately you removed all but a few sentences of the article, and there is much more information about her than that in the sources cited (her degrees, her awards, etc.). Did you read the sources? Sigh I guess I'll add some back in, although I'm tempted to revert.LaMona (talk) 18:58, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I removed unreferenced content consistent with my overall sense, along with comments by others, above, that the article's length was way out of proportion of the notability. When Wikipedians write at length about her degrees, her awards, when the news media and film criticism worlds generally don't write about such, then the article moves into CV territory. Further, there are WP:BLP concerns as well. My suggestion is to leave the article as is for the present, and if it survives AfD, I will look the other way if once again it is thoroughly gunked up with irrelevant uninteresting junk.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:37, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've added reliable content from NYT and other sources. It's there if you look for it. LaMona (talk) 19:53, 9 June 2015 (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.