Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/April Mullen


 * 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. Article has also been improved since this AFD opened. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:26, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

April Mullen

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:BLP of a film director, who has a potentially valid notability claim (a film that premiered at a major film festival) but isn't reliably sourced. Of the seven sources here, six are either primary sources (her own website, content where she's the bylined author of the piece, etc.) or blogs that cannot assist notability at all, and the only one that's actually an acceptable reliable source (Niagara Falls Review) just namechecks her existence in the process of not being about her. No prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can do better than this, but a film director isn't automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just because she exists -- she needs to be substantively the subject of reliable source coverage, not blog entries and a self-published website, to get over WP:CREATIVE and WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 21:25, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  Onel 5969  TT me 21:28, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  Onel 5969  TT me 21:30, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.  Onel 5969  TT me 21:31, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:10, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: I've added citations from Canada's leading newspaper and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation that I hope bolster the case for notability, as well as mainstream LGBT media review sources that are independent from the subject person.  GetSomeUtah (talk) 22:22, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It doesn't. She's the author of the CBC piece, so it doesn't assist notability at all — people get Wikipedia articles by being the subject of media coverage written by other people, not by being the author of the article's sources. Of the two Globe and Mail citations you added, neither one is about Mullen at all — one is a brief blurb review of a different film, and the other just briefly mentions Mullen's existence in the process being fundamentally about the film's writer, Stephanie Fabrizzi. And AfterEllen is a Q&A interview where Mullen is talking about herself, which thus does not demonstrate notability for the same reason that her self-published website and the CBC source don't: a person doesn't get to hype themselves into Wikipedia by talking or writing about themselves. All of those new sources would be acceptable for supplementary confirmation of stray facts after GNG had already been covered off by stronger ones — but none of them count a whit toward the initial meeting of GNG. Bearcat (talk) 22:47, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  Onel 5969  TT me 01:38, 13 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you for clarifying. GetSomeUtah (talk) 09:00, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I've added citations of other people talking about her, giving her an award, seeking her comment, and giving her work based on her accomplishments and notability. GetSomeUtah (talk) 09:40, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but you're still not really getting it. The only awards indicated here are "Birks Diamond Tribute" and "Niagara Falls Arts and Culture Wall of Fame", which are not awards that count as notability claims — a person has to win an award on the order of the Canadian Screen Awards or the Oscars or the Emmys or the BAFTAs to be considered notable for being an award winner, not just any random local award that exists anywhere at all. Being the interview guest on a TV show still fails what I said last time about AfterEllen: she's the one talking about herself. Being a soundbite-giver in an article about another thing doesn't assist notability, because it doesn't equate to being the subject of the coverage: Mullen still isn't the subject of "Female Directors Face Closed Doors in Canada, Study Finds", but merely gives that article's writer a 28-word quote in an article that's about a broad theme and not about Mullen herself — the article actually says more about Erika Linder than it does about Mullen, and Erika Linder isn't even a director. So no, you still haven't added any references that actually strengthen the case at all — 16 footnotes, and we're still at zero for footnotes that count as notability-supporting ones. Bearcat (talk) 22:11, 14 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks. It would be harsh to tell Ms. Mullen that her TIFF trinket is "just any random local award that exists anywhere." Canada's leading newspaper, broadcaster, and multiple online mags are giving her attention and seeking her out for comment because of her notability.  If Wikipedia only listed filmmakers who earned CSAs, Oscars, and Baftas, we'd have to cull a lot of articles.  Mullen has accomplishments in several related fields; she's not a Kardashian, all of whom have Wikipedia entries -- even Khloe.  Yes, one of the cited sources is primarily about Erika Linder, and it's hardly unusual in Wikipedia to use a part of an article to substantiate a claim.  Admins know that, so I'm baffled by the sledgehammer reply, sneering putdown of Ms. Mullen/Canada, personalizing, and the focus on the editor rather than the edits in the feedback above.


 * Part of the media attention Ms. Mullen has earned in turn has allowed her to speak, which in Wikipedia-land doesn't count -- I get that -- because it has to be someone else speaking about her. The irony is her message is that female voices aren't heard in Canadian cinema because men get all the big budgets, and the cited study validates that.  And she echoed that finding from personal experience.  And then -- this is delicious -- she is declared by Wikipedia admins as being not notable, validating that, indeed, her voice is not worthy of being heard.  And that's how Ms. Muzzled, er, Mullen, didn't make it into Wikipedia.  I appreciate the time spent on critiquing my proposed article and in listening to me.  GetSomeUtah (talk) 00:26, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Just for starters, you might want to double-check who created our article about Below Her Mouth if you think I'm somehow prejudiced against April Mullen.
 * At any rate, one of the main reasons we insist on reliable source coverage about a person, as opposed to handing a notability freebie to everybody just because the article claims something that sounds interesting, is that because we're an encyclopedia that anybody can edit, we have no processes in place to prevent somebody who doesn't like her for whatever reason from editing the article to attack her, or inserting outright lies about her, or revealing unpublished gossip about her personal life. You might think nobody would ever actually do that, but you would be wrong — it happens all the time on here, and reliable source coverage is our only method of sorting out what's true and what isn't. We depend on reliable source coverage because it's the only method we have of ensuring that the article stays accurate. We don't insist on reliable source coverage to punish people: we insist on it to protect them from the damage that having a Wikipedia article that isn't properly sourced can do to a person's life and reputation. Having a Wikipedia article is not always necessarily a good thing: it's a double-edged sword with more negative consequences than some people realize, and so using reliable sources to properly support notability is how we manage that risk.
 * Oh, and incidentally, "Birks Diamond Tribute" is not a "TIFF trinket". It's not an award presented or conferred by TIFF — it's a PR event independently organized and scheduled to occur during TIFF, but not organized or presented by TIFF. So it's not equivalent to winning "Best Canadian Film" or "Best Short Film" or "People's Choice" from the actual TIFF awards committee. Bearcat (talk) 01:01, 15 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I appreciate the effort to clarify.  GetSomeUtah (talk) 01:32, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

April Mullen has been interviewed and featured on one of the largest lesbian entertainment sites, AfterEllen. I have included a reference link here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AfterEllen (talk • contribs) 01:37, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * — AfterEllen (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * That's already been included in the article, and I've already explained above why it doesn't count. A Q&A interview represents the subject talking about herself, and thus works like her own self-published website and not like third-party coverage — it can be used for supplementary sourcing of stray facts after GNG has already been passed by stronger sources, but it does not count toward the basic question of getting her over GNG in the first place. Also, I don't know if you're an employee of AfterEllen or just a random person who picked that as your username because it happened to be top of mind due to the comment you wanted to add — but if you are an employee then you'll need to familiarize yourself with our conflict of interest rules, and if you're not then you'll need to familiarize yourself with our username policy which prohibits usernames that unambiguously represent the name of a company, group, institution or product. Bearcat (talk) 15:28, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

That is not a Q&A interview. Also, there is a video interview with her at a major Los Angeles film premiere, along with the rest of the cast. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AfterEllen (talk • contribs) 15:39, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is a Q&A interview: it's plainly written in the format "AfterEllen: Q? April Mullen: A.", which is the literal definition of a Q&A interview. And video interviews don't count either, for the same reason. The only kind of source that can support notability in a Wikipedia article is one in which she is being written about in the third person by somebody other than herself. Bearcat (talk) 16:00, 16 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. The subject's 17-year-career as an actress, screenwriter, director, and producer -- as documented in the article -- make her a "significant" subject with many reliable and independent sources, per the definition of the very first sentence in WP:GNG.  Ms. Mullen is therefore suitable for a stand-alone article.  For those who seek a better citation on any given project of the subject's, there is a template for that, and it can be inserted into the appropriate place in the article.  The overall notability is clear, and her accomplishments have received reliable, verifiable, and independent attention in and beyond her native country.  GetSomeUtah (talk) 20:25, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:GNG is a measure of the degree to which the subject has or has not been the subject of significant and substantive coverage in reliable sources. You have yet to show any sources that count toward building a GNG claim at all, however — the article is still based entirely on Q&A interviews, primary sources, blogs, and glancing namechecks of her existence in articles that aren't about her, and still lacks even one source that counts as substantive coverage in a reliable source for the purposes of meeting GNG. Bearcat (talk) 21:43, 16 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep - per WP:GNG. Hmlarson (talk) 06:48, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Where's there any GNG, when every source in the article at all is either unreliable, self-penned or a mere glancing namecheck of her existence in coverage of something else? Bearcat (talk) 15:44, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  A  Train talk 20:30, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets WP:CREATIVE as director of a notable film; cited reviews and articles on this film (which has received coverage in Variety, THR, etc) all discuss her work as a filmmaker and hence provide material for an article on her. Her acting is also mentioned in various reviews. The nominator seems to disagree with the existence of the subject notability criteria, and does not understand that material on an artist's creations is relevant when writing about the artist. Nobody else is arguing for deletion. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:56, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - as of now, it passes WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 16:35, 22 August 2017 (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.