Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patricia Harris Seeley

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 delete. Beccaynr having changed their view, the "keep" opinions based solely on their views must be given less weight. Sandstein 12:45, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Patricia Harris Seeley

[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)

WP:BLP of a film and television director, not properly referenced as passing WP:CREATIVE. As always, our inclusion standards are not automatically passed by every person whose article says they did stuff -- the notability test isn't in what they did, it's in how much media coverage they did or didn't get for doing what they did.
But this is referenced entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability at all -- IMDb, Rotten Tomatoes, her "staff" profiles on the self-published websites of organizations or companies that she's been directly affiliated with, and an alumni profile in the alumni magazine of her own alma mater -- without showing even one piece of reliable or notability-supporting coverage in a real media outlet at all, and even on a ProQuest search I can't find anything better (all I get is nine glancing namechecks of her existence in pieces that aren't about her, which isn't enough.)
Even the one potentially valid notability claim here (a Gemini Award nomination in an obscure category) isn't an instant notability freebie if you have to rely on her own self-published web presence to support it because it's completely unverifiable in real media coverage -- we have seen articles created that falsely claimed award nominations the subject didn't really have, so even when it comes to award nominations the notability test still vests not in the words "Gemini Award" but in the media coverage that can or can't be shown to independently verify that the award nomination actually happened.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to have any real WP:GNG-worthy sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 11:58, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 11:58, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 11:58, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 11:58, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the well reasoned argument of the nominator.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:19, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found reviews for The Legend of La Llorona, e.g. Guardian (Jan. 11, 2022), Austin Chronicle (Jan. 7, 2022), and Screenrant (Jan. 9, 2022), Bloody Disgusting (Jan. 12, 2022), etc. For Superhero Wannabe, I found a listing in a 2004 Variety article for the Toronto Film Festival. Award nominations for Caution: May Contain Nuts are listed at 7th Canadian Screen Awards, with a source in the television series article. Beccaynr (talk) 14:33, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Seeley didn't get any CSA nominations for Caution: May Contain Nuts. The show was nominated in other categories at the 7th CSAs, yes, but Seeley wasn't one of the nominees, and thus can't inherit notability just because she worked with other people who were nominated in other categories where she herself wasn't. She was a Rosie nominee for that show, but the Rosies are a regional award that isn't an instant notability-clincher, not a national one. Her purported Gemini nomination was for something called X-Weighted, which I've been entirely unable to verify in any sources whatsoever. Bearcat (talk) 17:30, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:CREATIVE, there appears to be insufficient support from sources for #3, has 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 [...] multiple independent periodical articles or reviews or #4 won significant critical attention. It appears WP:TOOSOON for more than a Weak delete. Beccaynr (talk) 17:43, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources that User:Beccaynr lists demonstrate notability as defined by WP:CREATIVE which calls for more than one review of their work in a good source CT55555 (talk) 15:11, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing the update of the person who's comments informed mine, makes me change my perspective. I'm withdrawing my !vote. Consider me as abstaining, please. CT55555 (talk) 20:50, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:43, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are very many reliable, independant revews of The Legend of La Llorona. Therefore, subject meets WP:CREATIVE 3 (played a major role — directed and wrote — in creating a significant work which has recieved multiple reviews). Samsmachado (talk) 10:33, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Beccaynr the topic satisfy WP:GNG. JoyStick101 (talk) 06:12, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Beccaynr does not, in fact, make the supportive arguments that this !vote seems to suggest. In fact, this completely misunderstands what Beccanyr has written, twice. SN54129 14:30, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I was pinged twice, so to follow up on my !vote to delete: my interpretation of WP:CREATIVE#3 is that we need more than reviews to support notability - the reviews are in addition to the work being significant or well-known, which I think can sometimes be supported by the volume and content of the secondary coverage. For this article, the reviews are largely negative and do not seem to indicate significance or notoriety, and there is little other verifiable evidence of critical recognition for her other work. WP:GNG/WP:BASIC does not appear sufficiently supported by the reviews, and significant independent and reliable coverage about her and her career has not been found. Beccaynr (talk) 19:12, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:53, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Beccayner; a careful WP:BEFORE supports the nom's orignal argument that there is insufficient SIGCOV to warrant a standalone article. Likewise, this is a BLP, so even more care should be taken, and reviews on their own are not sufficiently independent or third-party. Per WP:BLPSOURCES, contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable. SN54129 14:30, 21 April 2022 (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.