Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jennifer Sarah Dean


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 20:35, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Jennifer Sarah Dean

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:GNG and Wp:CREATIVE the sources are as follows, 1 is Imdb, 1 is a meet the team which just links to her own website, 4 do not mention her aussietheatre,, theaureview, smh, roundhouse, 3 are associated pages for one of her plays, playdead, melbourneshakespeare, 1 is a passing mention of her winning a prize from the LOST theatre company (a 180 seat London fringe theatre), the only page that might support notability is an interview with her in the Canberra times but it is about the play Ghost Stories (play) for which she was the co-director. This looks rather like a vanity piece. A search on the web turned up nothing in-depth. Domdeparis (talk) 13:20, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:04, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:24, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:55, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete for lack of reliable, secondary sources. Possibly WP:TOOSOON.  After searching "Julia Quinn" I understand why she changed her name, I had no idea there would be so many Julias Quinn.  Keywords didn't help.  I did find 2 articles in the Canberra Times about a play she directed, Ghost Stories, I added them to the article.  the first was a pre-opening feature story.  The second was a review, with a complimentary sentence about her work as director.  It's just not enough to support an article.  Feel free to ping me if anyone manages to source it adequately.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:41, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep if WP:CREATIVE is the standard, which is a very high bar, then she does not meet it. Go ahead and DELETE if you must. These two sources about two different productions look sufficient to me.


 * --David Tornheim (talk) 13:48, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment as I said in my nomination the first helps a little but is a local newspaper promotional interview about the play and not the subject and the second does not mention the subject at all. they could be used as sources in an article about this production of the play but not to support the notability of the subject. And BTW I think they are about the same product of Ghost Stories and not 2 different ones; And please don't forget that just because a production might have received in-depth coverage this does not make the director notable as notability is not inherited. Domdeparis (talk) 14:02, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * theaureview.com does not appear to be a reliable and may not be a secondary source, also, it doesn't mention her by name.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:23, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * ^Sorry. I put in the wrong ref.  I struck out the one that didn't include her name and replaced it with the one I had mean to include this.--David Tornheim (talk) 17:11, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know how local the magazines are. There is enough production quality in both that they give the appearance of being substantial.  I am not sure what our standard is for when a magazine or newspaper is considered too local or regional to count. If either of you can cite to it, I might change my mind.  I doubt anyone would refer to the U.S. as "regional".  I saw an article on a French commedian and wonder if that is "local".   I have seen articles based solely on non-English sources, so the definition of regional is unclear to me.  I might bring this question to a noticeboard if there is no straightforward answer.  --David Tornheim (talk) 17:11, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Not a useful source towards WP:N no mattter how important a publication it is because all it does is to list her as the director. What we need are articles that discuss her work and career in some depth, full profile articles are best, but at the very least, secondary, WP:RSes that detail her career and discuss her accomplishments.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:00, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Reply Have found additional source which I may feel qualifies as notary as is a national printed/digital magazine. Article is not solely about here but she is clearly mentioned. http://scenestr.com.au/arts/5-lines-shakespeare-worthy-tinder-linesLaura Wade (talk) 00:55, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Reply Also found this mention in The West Australian which I believe is Western Australia's largest print publication. My feeling is that she is clearly of enough notoriety from a variety of sources to be mentioned however I am new to Wikipedia. Source seem to be from a variety of places across the country and for various projects not just local work. https://thewest.com.au/entertainment/arts-reviews/left-in-the-dark-by-creepy-shows-inevitable-twist-ng-ya-118875?r=1Laura Wade (talk) 01:07, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * What we need are articles that discuss her work and career in some depth, full profile articles are best I'm not convinced all of that is required under WP:NACTOR. If you can find some policy that says something like that, I'd like to see it.  For the record, I am an inclusionist, and I generally err on the side of including if there is uncertainty.   I can't say for certain that she meets the standard nor can I say she fails it either.  She does have, at least, those two article that could be WP:RS and are about two different works, each of which might be notable.  She's clearly not just some small town director with a couple of blurbs in the the town paper by her friends raving about how great she is.  The real problem is I don't know the circulation of the RS I suggested.  --David Tornheim (talk) 00:25, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Reply I checked the circulation of the Canberra Times which I may have wrongly called a local newspaper but and its weekday print is 16k copies which is not a lot I think. I don't know if this is important or not. Domdeparis (talk) 15:44, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The page only mentions that she acted before becoming a director in the lede and infobox it states that she is a director and writer there are no mentions in the article of her notability as an actor...I don't see how you can quote NACTOR ...and the sources that you provide concern her work as a director...so the notability criteria to quote is WP:CREATIVE. I'm happy for you that you are an inclusionist but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for notable content. If I was 100% sure that she was not notable enough I would have made a CSD or a PROD but this is a debatable case so we're looking for convincing arguments and not just "I'm not really sure so let's keep it anyway" I think. Domdeparis (talk) 10:45, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * True. I didn't consider her an actor, but a director, and the term didn't come up in a search and I mistakenly thought WP:NACTOR was closest.  I may propose adding director to the WP:CREATIVE category.  That's indeed a very high bar and I agree she does not meet it.  I am a bit surprised  is that high, especially when compared to WP:NSPORT and the plethora of articles we have on businesses that are making ordinary products that could never qualify under such a standard. --David Tornheim (talk) 15:25, 6 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Note I searched Proquest; and I and others have searched GNews and HighBeam, as well as JSTOR and books.  Feel free to flag me to reconsider if anyone finds in-depth and/or substanstive secondary WP:RSS.  But it looks clear that is either a nonnotable career or, more likely, WP:TOOSOON.   There should be no prejudice against re-creating the article in a few years if her work someday verifiably attracts significant attention.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:25, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Boneymau (talk) 05:53, 8 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete per nominators criteria and because of lack of reliable, secondary sources. Possibly WP:TOOSOON. I believe in a few years time she may be considered for a wiki page if she continues her work and gets more recognised by established professionals and foundations. Tzsagan (talk) 07:58, 13 April 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.