468:: If Jaye is a researcher who's work has influenced a discipline, what discipline? How, according to academic sources, has her research made a difference? This would still need reliable sources about that work, but we only have sources about the single movie she's made, and none of those sources discuss any sort of significant lasting impact on an academic field, nor is this likely for a relatively recently released film.
498:
Well, like I said, PROF was only mentioned as an example. DIRECTOR is the relevant guideline: her work is "important" in the sense that there is lots of coverage in mainstream sources (NYT, Sydney Herald, et al.), which satisfies criterion 3. There's no need for "movies about the movie" or any of the
852:
Jaye is arguably one of the most notable figures in the manosphere. Numerous protologisms and neoligisms can be traced to her if following the etymology. Furthermore, a redirect is not logical since the subject of the redirect was llargely about herself, making it somewhat of an autobiography, hence
570:
are notable works about films that presumably meet this threhsold. I don't think a bog-standard collection of movie reviews is enough, otherwise what is the point? I suppose there's room for disagreement regarding where this line lies, but as I said, I don't see how this article helps the project
413:
is itself not significant, you have not really made a convincing case for a redirect. You already concede (2) in saying that the film is actually notable. So, do you stick by (1), i.e. that she did not play an important role in producing this film? K.e.coffman's reasoning seems to be the same as
642:
she clearly meets point 3, she created the Red Pill and it is a significant work which is world wide being watched by people from
Australia, Europe and North America to name just some of the places where people have attack it and tried to censure its content. It's been reported by news shows,
543:
independent pieces in first-tier, mainstream sources, like NYT, Sydney Herald, etc...I count close to a dozen. So, I guess you're arguing that because the coverage isn't a movie about this movie, or a book about this movie, or a TV series about this movie, that her work is not notable, and by
479:
do not suggest any sort of lasting legacy for the film either. There are no movies about the movie, nor any books or TV series. Is The Red Pill "significant"? Right now the film's article does a poor job of explaining that. It's mostly routine tabloid reviews, outrage culture op-eds, and news
643:
newspapers and such like so clearly meets the additional requirement that such work must have been the primary subject of "...multiple independent periodical articles". Point 3 also ends with "...or reviews" so being the primary subject in reviews is enough to meet this point as well.
523:...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.
891:
389:
The analogy you're making is, for example, that a lab technician is not notable because of important discoveries and I agree. That is because that lab technician is not the "responsible party". But, the lab head/principal investigator
483:
There has to be something more substantial than this. The important encyclopedic information about her can be placed on the film's article. The project isn't improved by poorly-sourced stubs for every single directer of every film.
831:. And besides, considering the significant coverage that she has garnered, she seems to be notable anyways, as we have a large amount of coverage in reliable sources. Thus, the article should be kept and not deleted or redirected.
370:
I don't see any individual notability for the director, only for their film. We don't have any policy that mandates articles for everyone who worked on something noteworthy (very few articles for people who work as best boys.)
574:
As for the first NYT article, it's a single paragraph, internet-only blurb paraphrasing the
Guardian article already cited. The prestige of the outlet should not be overstated in this case, and its use in the lede looks like
480:
articles about the funding history and difficulty with screenings. The periodical reviews included are short and routine. There is very little indication of enduring coverage now that the film is out of theaters.
168:
600:
My points are (1) that an artist is notable if her work is notable and (2) there are tons of top-tier sources that demonstrate such. We evidently disagree on point (1). Closing admin will adjudicate. Thanks,
349:. Articles about her and her work in NYT, Guardian, Evening Standard are referenced here and it's easy to find many more in e.g. Sydney Herald, The Australian, The New Daily, etc. What kind of reasoning is
880:
People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject
306:
326:
751:] This along with the sourcing shows the film exists, and has attracted attention for being controversial, but is really not significant. It might not even pass a deletion review of its own.
874:
Everyone who is talking about WP:ACTOR, WP:DIRECTOR, etc are missing the point here. The criteria for biographical articles comes down to the same criteria as all other articles, from
121:
724:- Director is not independently noteworthy aside from the film. Much of the biographical content is unsourced, which would not be the case if she warranted her own article.
162:
579:. The second NYT one is more significant, but it's five paragraphs which says nothing about Jaye other than using her name as a shorthand way to critique the film.
286:
240:
353:? A person is notable if they've done notable work and that notability is obvious from the many articles in mainstream sources that discuss her and her work.
882:. As part of the AfD discussion template, there are links to sources like Google News and Google Scholar and Google Books. Taking a look at this results
562:"Somehow"? Obviously you don't have it. "Independent and notable work" is somewhat subjective, but none of these works about the Red Pill are notable.
450:...Jaye quite obviously meets criterion #3, since there are many mainstream sources (named above) that specifically discuss her and her film. Best,
890:: 600+ (although I'm sure many of these are false positives you can see pretty clearly from the previews that she's discussed in multiple books,
563:
128:
828:- Although most of the coverage is about one of her films, that isn't the only thing she has gotten in the media for. See this, for example:
429:
372:
858:
745:, condition #3 specifically says that the director's film output must be significant. There are only 6 reviews on Rotten Tomatoes for
465:
759:
732:
17:
499:
other imaginary hurdles you mentioned. The article may be poorly written, but that is not what is being adjudicated here. We are
236:
472:
839:
94:
89:
668:
571:
when the reliable sources of substance about Jaye are about The Red Pill doc, and all information can easily be placed there.
98:
428:
You seem to be referring to some guideline or policy when you say 'PROF #1' and 'ARTIST #3'. Could you link those please?
394:
notable for these important discoveries. That is the crux of PROF #1. For this case, the relevant criterion is ARTIST #3:
183:
801:
663:. I also contend that the article should be kept based on the valid points raised above by Agricola44 and ThinkingTwice.
150:
81:
972:
40:
525:
There's nothing imaginary about this, and if you're going to cite a guideline, you should cite the entire guideline.
567:
396:
The person has...played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work...
664:
539:
Another case where we're going to get down into the semantic mud, I suppose. This work has been the subject of
433:
376:
576:
144:
862:
334:
314:
294:
757:
730:
968:
928:
273:
140:
36:
953:
932:
911:
866:
844:
818:
792:
761:
742:
734:
712:
688:
672:
660:
651:
639:
610:
595:
557:
534:
518:
512:
493:
459:
447:
437:
423:
380:
362:
338:
318:
298:
277:
252:
219:
63:
811:
703:
606:
553:
508:
455:
419:
358:
230:
776:
837:
190:
176:
920:
887:
548:
is not notable. So, lots of coverage in NYT et al., but somehow that doesn't count. Do I have it?
268:
the redirect. The subject is not independently notable, and a separate article is not yet needed.
949:
644:
591:
530:
489:
330:
310:
290:
215:
210:
This was a redirect to The Red Pill, but has been repeatedly restored without clear explanation.
899:
883:
875:
752:
725:
682:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
967:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
443:
200:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
924:
907:
269:
85:
941:
772:
602:
549:
504:
451:
415:
354:
248:
226:
895:
156:
207:
with relatively little coverage of Jaye herself, and no separate claims to notability.
832:
945:
587:
526:
485:
211:
746:
721:
476:
410:
403:
261:
239:), the user who has repeatedly restored this article. That request is available at
204:
53:
894:
15,000+... It's true that this article isn't currently making adequate use of the
115:
903:
77:
69:
244:
829:
503:
assessing notability and the many sources demonstrate she passes. Thx,
446:, though I only mentioned this as an example. The relevant one here is
442:
Yes, they are official guidelines for assessing notability. Here is
225:
Comment: I have filed a request for arbitration enforcement against
961:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
804:
to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
853:
nodding towards notability. In a nutshell, Jaye is notable
241:
Knowledge (XXG):Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Stormwatch
473:
Knowledge (XXG):Notability (people)#Creative professionals
307:
list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions
898:
that covers her, and that's problem. But in terms of the
775:
WP:ACTOR, not notable stubs like this have no place here.
327:
list of
Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions
111:
107:
103:
175:
810:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
189:
582:As an aside, if the article survives, that film (
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
975:). No further edits should be made to this page.
398:. Now, unless you're claiming that (1) Jaye did
638:Agricola44 makes a compelling argument. As per
466:Knowledge (XXG):Notability (academics)#Criteria
919:Not notable. One film and it's a direct-sale
475:, that's more plausible, but the sources for
8:
325:Note: This debate has been included in the
305:Note: This debate has been included in the
285:Note: This debate has been included in the
324:
304:
287:list of Women-related deletion discussions
284:
199:Sources do not indicate this person meets
741:In response to those who feel this meets
700:- not independently notable per proposer.
879:
564:Category:Documentary films about films
522:
584:The Right to Love: An American Family
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
351:a separate article is not yet needed
586:) should be added to the article.
203:. Sources overwhelmingly focus on
24:
771:. Definately 100% does not meet
659:. The subject meets point 3 of
402:play a major role in producing
680:. per Agricola44's reasoning.
1:
954:01:31, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
933:21:30, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
912:20:43, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
867:18:35, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
845:12:41, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
819:05:15, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
793:04:30, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
762:20:36, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
64:07:24, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
735:23:03, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
713:03:36, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
689:23:13, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
673:19:54, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
652:13:15, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
611:06:23, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
596:20:56, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
558:04:59, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
535:23:12, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
513:22:45, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
494:22:36, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
460:22:34, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
438:19:28, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
424:13:44, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
381:06:08, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
363:03:08, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
339:17:10, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
319:17:10, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
299:17:10, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
278:03:35, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
253:23:50, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
220:23:30, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
992:
568:Category:Books about films
964:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
902:there's no question. -
814:Winged Blades of Godric
665:Bob from the Beltway
821:
711:
341:
321:
301:
983:
966:
857:her profession.
835:
816:
809:
807:
805:
789:
786:
783:
780:
710:
708:
706:Volunteer Marek
701:
685:
649:
194:
193:
179:
131:
119:
101:
61:
57:
34:
991:
990:
986:
985:
984:
982:
981:
980:
979:
973:deletion review
962:
923:movement film.
842:
833:
822:
812:
800:
798:
787:
784:
781:
778:
704:
702:
683:
645:
136:
127:
92:
76:
73:
59:
55:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
989:
987:
978:
977:
957:
956:
935:
914:
869:
847:
840:
808:
797:
796:
795:
765:
764:
738:
737:
715:
691:
675:
654:
632:
631:
630:
629:
628:
627:
626:
625:
624:
623:
622:
621:
620:
619:
618:
617:
616:
615:
614:
613:
580:
577:WP:BOMBARDMENT
572:
481:
469:
430:PeterTheFourth
384:
383:
373:PeterTheFourth
365:
343:
342:
322:
302:
281:
280:
255:
197:
196:
133:
72:
67:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
988:
976:
974:
970:
965:
959:
958:
955:
951:
947:
943:
939:
936:
934:
930:
926:
922:
918:
915:
913:
909:
905:
901:
897:
893:
892:Custom Search
889:
885:
881:
877:
873:
870:
868:
864:
860:
859:92.13.131.144
856:
851:
848:
846:
843:
838:
836:
830:
827:
824:
823:
820:
817:
815:
806:
803:
794:
791:
790:
774:
770:
767:
766:
763:
760:
758:
756:
755:
750:
748:
744:
740:
739:
736:
733:
731:
729:
728:
723:
719:
716:
714:
709:
707:
699:
695:
692:
690:
687:
686:
679:
676:
674:
670:
666:
662:
658:
655:
653:
650:
648:
647:ThinkingTwice
641:
637:
634:
633:
612:
608:
604:
599:
598:
597:
593:
589:
585:
581:
578:
573:
569:
565:
561:
560:
559:
555:
551:
547:
542:
538:
537:
536:
532:
528:
524:
520:
516:
515:
514:
510:
506:
502:
497:
496:
495:
491:
487:
482:
478:
474:
470:
467:
463:
462:
461:
457:
453:
449:
445:
441:
440:
439:
435:
431:
427:
426:
425:
421:
417:
412:
408:
405:
401:
397:
393:
388:
387:
386:
385:
382:
378:
374:
369:
366:
364:
360:
356:
352:
348:
345:
344:
340:
336:
332:
331:Coolabahapple
328:
323:
320:
316:
312:
311:Coolabahapple
308:
303:
300:
296:
292:
291:Coolabahapple
288:
283:
282:
279:
275:
271:
267:
263:
259:
256:
254:
250:
246:
242:
238:
235:
232:
228:
224:
223:
222:
221:
217:
213:
208:
206:
202:
192:
188:
185:
182:
178:
174:
170:
167:
164:
161:
158:
155:
152:
149:
146:
142:
139:
138:Find sources:
134:
130:
126:
123:
117:
113:
109:
105:
100:
96:
91:
87:
83:
79:
75:
74:
71:
68:
66:
65:
62:
58:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
963:
960:
937:
916:
871:
854:
849:
825:
813:
799:
777:
768:
754:TimTempleton
753:
747:The Red Pill
727:TimTempleton
726:
722:The Red Pill
717:
705:
697:
693:
681:
677:
656:
646:
635:
583:
545:
540:
500:
477:The Red Pill
411:The Red Pill
406:
404:The Red Pill
399:
395:
391:
367:
350:
346:
265:
262:The Red Pill
257:
233:
209:
205:The Red Pill
198:
186:
180:
172:
165:
159:
153:
147:
137:
124:
54:
49:
47:
31:
28:
925:Morty C-137
743:WP:DIRECTOR
661:WP:DIRECTOR
640:WP:DIRECTOR
519:WP:DIRECTOR
448:WP:DIRECTOR
270:K.e.coffman
163:free images
78:Cassie Jaye
70:Cassie Jaye
603:Agricola44
550:Agricola44
544:extension
505:Agricola44
452:Agricola44
416:Agricola44
355:Agricola44
227:Stormwatch
969:talk page
921:WP:FRINGE
834:RileyBugz
414:yours...
37:talk page
971:or in a
946:Hmlarson
900:WP:BASIC
886:- 1550,
876:WP:BASIC
802:Relisted
718:Redirect
698:Redirect
588:Grayfell
527:Grayfell
486:Grayfell
368:Redirect
258:Redirect
237:contribs
212:Grayfell
122:View log
39:or in a
855:outside
684:Aleccat
444:WP:PROF
266:protect
201:WP:NBIO
169:WP refs
157:scholar
95:protect
90:history
942:WP:GNG
917:Delete
904:Scarpy
773:WP:BIO
769:Delete
694:Delete
264:&
141:Google
99:delete
896:WP:RS
888:Books
245:Yamla
184:JSTOR
145:books
129:Stats
116:views
108:watch
104:links
60:Train
16:<
950:talk
940:per
938:Keep
929:talk
908:talk
884:News
872:Keep
863:talk
850:Keep
841:投稿記録
826:Keep
678:Keep
669:talk
657:Keep
636:Keep
607:talk
592:talk
566:and
554:talk
541:many
531:talk
517:Per
509:talk
501:only
490:talk
471:For
464:For
456:talk
434:talk
420:talk
409:(2)
377:talk
359:talk
347:Keep
335:talk
315:talk
295:talk
274:talk
249:talk
243:. --
231:talk
216:talk
177:FENS
151:news
112:logs
86:talk
82:edit
50:keep
779:Nik
720:to
696:or
546:she
407:and
400:not
260:to
191:TWL
120:– (
952:)
944:.
931:)
910:)
878::
865:)
788:Ho
785:ai
782:ol
749:.
671:)
609:)
594:)
556:)
533:)
521::
511:)
492:)
458:)
436:)
422:)
392:is
379:)
361:)
337:)
329:.
317:)
309:.
297:)
289:.
276:)
251:)
218:)
171:)
114:|
110:|
106:|
102:|
97:|
93:|
88:|
84:|
52:.
948:(
927:(
906:(
861:(
667:(
605:(
590:(
552:(
529:(
507:(
488:(
454:(
432:(
418:(
375:(
357:(
333:(
313:(
293:(
272:(
247:(
234:·
229:(
214:(
195:)
187:·
181:·
173:·
166:·
160:·
154:·
148:·
143:(
135:(
132:)
125:·
118:)
80:(
56:A
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.