Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lauren Wolkstein (2nd nomination)

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. Missvain (talk) 00:16, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Wolkstein

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This article was nominated for deletion back in 2014 but the sources were seemingly not extensively researched. To meet WP:CREATIVE she would need to have:

created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews

Is this the case? She was a producer for the fifth season of Queen Sugar and directed a more limited set of episodes. Regarding coverage, I went over all the sources and it's mostly passing mentions and primary sources. Only this description interview from Filmmakermagazine seems interesting. I searched the web and found:

Shortoftheweek which I doubt to be a RS (and is barely more than a passing mention anyway)
interview with moveablefest.com (RS?)
interview with anthemmagazine.com (RS?)
interview with nofilmschool.com (RS?)
interview with pinnlandempire.com (Vimeo link, RS?)
interview with Hammer to Nail (RS?)
interview with Temple news (The Temple News is a weekly newspaper of Temple University, Wolkstein is a Professor at the Temple University)

Only Filmmaker Magazine could be found on Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Resources. I think it's worth discussing and perhaps someone manages to find better sources that could establish notability. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 21:59, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 21:59, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 21:59, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:49, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is completely ridiculous and arguably unhinged. Alexis Jazz's edits to Lauren Wolkstein's page have advanced into vandalism and I removed the "nominated for deletion" panel because it is vindictive, groundless and frankly stupid. Lauren Wolkstein is a PRODUCING DIRECTOR on a five-season major TV series created by Ava DuVernay. She has won awards for her short and feature films prior to then. Her work has appeared at ALL of the top film festivals in the world (Cannes, Sundance, SXSW). What on Earth does a director have to do exactly to qualify for notability on Wikipedia if that doesn't qualify her? I wish to propose that Alexis Jazz be banned from editing Lauren Wolkstein's page. He or she has shown stunningly poor judgment with this absurdly unwarranted move. Zedembee (talk) 17:04, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop the bot coming back and repeating the vandalism initiated by Alexis Jazz. I am not sure how to do that. The fact that literally no one else has felt compelled to second Alexis Jazz here should SPEAK VOLUMES. This is a lone operator apparently intent on disrupting the page. Please close this page so that the bot does not come back. This is deeply unfair to the yearslong accomplishments of the subject of the Lauren Wolkstein page. Thank you. Zedembee (talk) 19:11, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As a note, I've removed some headers and added the !vote to this statement. Original/pre-collapse is here. Primefac (talk) 19:36, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - At a recent AIV, Muboshgu stated "Edits are not vandalism. Please ensure recent edits constitute vandalism before re-reporting." (diff), and after a re-report, Malcolmxl5 stated "Declined. Second opinion: This is not vandalism." (diff). Beccaynr (talk) 19:52, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you but this is not of any relevance to whether the subject is of sufficient notability for a dedicated Wikipedia page.Zedembee (talk) 20:07, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:CREATIVE because she has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work [...]. In addition, such work has been the primary subject of [...] multiple independent [...] reviews that I have found and added to the article: LA Times, The Hollywood Reporter, Vulture, NPR, Variety, Chicago Reader, and the Austin Chronicle, in addition to the two reviews that were already in the article. Beccaynr (talk) 23:15, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Beccaynr, the reason I'm unsure The Strange Ones qualifies is that it must be a a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. As I read it, "significant or well-known" is a higher bar than "notable". The Strange Ones meets Wikipedia notability criteria, but I don't think it's a "significant or well-known work" like for example Star Trek, The Incredible Hulk or The Simpsons. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 23:24, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- From my view, the film is objectively 'well-known' due to the volume of reviews; however, with the 2013 Filmmaker profile and the way the 2017 - 2018 reviews provide specific commentary on her work as a director/writer/editor, it looks like WP:BASIC notability is also supported; this recent interview with Xtra includes biographical information; and Variety has a 2016 review of another one of her works. Beccaynr (talk) 23:53, 1 May 2021 (UTC) As does the NY Times, Slant Magazine, Film Pulse, and The Austin Chronicle. Beccaynr (talk) 00:09, 2 May 2021 (UTC) As I continue to research and revise the article, I also found brief but non-trivial 2014 coverage from the NYT's T Magazine. Beccaynr (talk) 19:04, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Beccaynr. Certainly "significant" is a higher bar than "notable", but it's not that much higher. If the bar for "significant" were "as well-known as Star Trek" we'd exclude nearly everything. pburka (talk) 22:50, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:CREATIVE. The Strange Ones has won significant critical attention which makes her notable. --Ashley yoursmile! 12:02, 3 May 2021 (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.