Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christine Fugate


 * 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. Looks like the overall consensus is to keep, especially now that the article has been vastly improved. (non-admin closure) Sir Joseph (talk) 17:18, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Christine Fugate

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This film director fails WP:NBIO, as tagged since October 2008. No reliable secondary sources could be found. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 23:55, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 1 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep, remove notability tag, and tag for sourcing. Her career was 20 years ago, so a gNews search won't get us there.  I ran a Proquest news archive search on her relatively unique name.  Her 1999 documentary film The Girl Next Door (1999 film), was extremely widely reviewed (typical headline: Documentary humanizes porn superstar Valentine.)  and would easily support a page.  So would her 1998 film Tobacco Blues,   NYTimes review: When Good People Grow a Dangerous Plant], by Walter Goodman. E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:42, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Keep: Per HEY because of editor involvement and improvements --AND-- I stand corrected: This is a BLP that is held to a higher standard of sourcing and the subject is not notable enough to pass any form of Notability (people) especially any of the criteria of "Creative professionals". The book had reviews on Listopia that is user generated and finding sourcing circled back to IMDb that is also user generated and not acceptable to use for referencing. The article uses inline links to IMDb. I removed some and added references but these are not subject specific. The "External links" section is used for sourcing and this is not acceptable. I trimmed that section. I could moved one link up to a reference. I opened 12 tabs trying to find sourcing and found a Goodreads source but the subject/editor (compiler) listed as an author is listed there as a Goodreads Author so this would be considered a primary source with COI. The book is for sale on Amazon but that does not give inherent notability. I have attempted to make improvements but there is still the notability issue. The notability tag and referencing tags are appropriate, arbitrarily removing them would be egregious, and the unsolvable issues of notability seem only to be remedied by deletion. Otr500 (talk) 11:51, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Please encounter the argument that I made, which is that at least two of her films were so widely reviewed that each would pass WP:NFILM. And Note that although we do consider a WP:CREATIVE professional notable even in a case where we nothing about the life, but the work is notable, in this case the biographical part of the article  has some WP:RS.  Plus I have just added 4 review in major daily papers to each of two films.  Lots more reviews out there. WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP. E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:40, 6 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Just click HighBeam, Scholar, or NYT on the search bar to quickly verify notability. Or this gBooks search .  E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:26, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep looks like there is a reasonable amount of stuff out there; just found a New York Times review for another one of her films. oh, and there is some personal detail about her in this article, again the New York Times []. And I havent even really started looking yet. Curdle (talk) 13:57, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. I have added a few more citations, and from a HighBeam search I see additional articles in Boston Globe, Curve, Washington Post, and Variety. I think this meets WP:BASIC. Sam Sailor 20:20, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Comments: With these vast improvements, and the nominator may agree, this article might qualify for a snow keep. Otr500 (talk) 00:20, 8 June 2018 (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.