Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Debra Gonsher Vinik


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 10:10, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Debra Gonsher Vinik

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails to pass GNG Zigzig20s (talk) 20:22, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete -- A confluence of SPA authoring of this article and its walled garden companion Diva Communications which duplicates content. Both should go. Rhadow (talk) 21:35, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:35, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:03, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:03, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:03, 10 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment, are the Emmys a "well-known and significant award"? i would suggest yes, so as Vinik has been nominated for/won(?) a number of them she meets WP:ANYBIO and is a keep, comments about spas and walled gardens, although sometimes of concern, are irrelevant here, is the subject notable or not? Coolabahapple (talk) 01:17, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete not all emmy awards confer notability. Wikipedia is built around verifiability, which means sources, which means we delete when we lack such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:05, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment -- Coolabahapple -- "Are the Emmys a 'well-known and significant award'?" Yes, I think the national ones are. Let's look at the specifics of Divine Prescription (2013). It won a regional Emmy. There are twenty regions in the United States. Regional awards are not awarded to individuals as they are at the national level. They are awarded to the program and its media outlet. Yes, participants are noted, but they are not recipients. At the 2014 New York awards, 113 winners were announced. Divine Prescription took the prize in religion.  It sounds to me like every kid goes home with a prize. Nominations certainly don't count.
 * And yes, I am concerned with the self-promotion in the article, and its carbon copy Diva Communications. It is disingenuous to describe Divine Prescription as airing on ABC. It aired on WABC, a local affiliate. In neither article did I see a lick of independent third party review, or any review in this article. Rhadow (talk) 02:07, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * thanks and, duly chastised, have struck out my "keep":) Coolabahapple (talk) 02:25, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello Coolabahapple -- You aren't chastised. The editors of this article are. Rhadow (talk) 02:29, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * thanks Coolabahapple (talk) 02:32, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I concur with User:Coolabahapple's remark: comments about spas and walled gardens, although sometimes of concern, are irrelevant here, is the subject notable or not?E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:30, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello E.M.Gregory -- I agree. After the validity of the references in Diva Communications is examined, we can make an assessment of the notability of the subject (not the films). Until this article has references about the subject, there is nothing to evaluate. Rhadow (talk) 11:40, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Radow, please note that, WP:HEYMANN I have supplied referenced, and referenced material. Also, WP:FILMMAKER/ WP:CREATIVE assesses notability based on WP:RS coverage of a filmmaker's the work.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:54, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * WP:HEYMANN Article now sourced to Los Angeles Times, Jerusalem Post, and other papers. I also let out more of the hotair. I decided to take a closer look at this after noticing that USER:DGG, a deletionist utterly intolerant of PROMO, had begun a cleanup-bu-deletion a couple of months ago.  There is more unsourced material that needs to be removed.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:09, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep There does seem to be a case for keeping this. A review of one of her books.  Press coverage for   a couple of her many documentaries, and, especially, the press coverage of her film on Ugandan Jews. I added some of the sources I found in a proquest search, but  I can see more that could be added  in the links that come up on the search bar above.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:09, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Propose redirecting Diva Communications here, and merging any useful sources from that page,, since it seems to be a "one filmmaker" corporation.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:19, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems to be enough independent press about her and her work, even if this article is imperfect. In addition to the sources given in the article, there's this news blog post on Psych Central of an interview with her, a feature on one of her films by The Forward , and this piece on the making of one of her documentaries by the The Times of Israel . And I agree with E.M.Gregory, the Diva Communications page should probably be redirected here and any material that's worth salvaging should be moved accordingly. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:11, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:24, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 19 December 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.