Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jill Billcock


 * 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The result was   Nomination withdrawn in light of improvements and heading to WP:SNOW. LibStar (talk) 03:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Jill Billcock

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

fails WP:BIO. this article has existed for over 4 years and is still unreferenced. hardly any third party coverage.gnews LibStar (talk) 04:03, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. It helps to read the Google News hits as well as count them. The subject won an Eddie in 2002 and the International Award for Filmmaking Excellence at the 2007 Australian Film Institute awards, and was nominated for an Oscar in 2001, clearly passing WP:ANYBIO. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  —Phil Bridger (talk) 15:59, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep Subject's notability is asserted and sourced. With respects to the nominator, "no one's been working on it" is not a valid reason to delete something when notability is so easy to discern.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 04:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * my reason for nomination is failing the significant coverage test. LibStar (talk) 04:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Nice then that Phil Bridger added sources. passes WP:ANYBIO. Good job Phil!
 * And with respects Libstar, the GNG does not mandate lots-of-sources. It does not mandate 4 or 6 or 8 or 10 pieces of coverage. RS is RS, and searches find her being written of since at least 2001. It does not matter that she does not have hundreds of articles written about her elsewhere, as long as what IS written allows her to meet our guidelines.   Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 05:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * quality of sources is more important than quantity. although I'm sure you know that as well :) LibStar (talk) 05:49, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed... as you clearly stated your concern that the article "has existed for over 4 years and is still unreferenced". I found Phil's providing of Los Angeles Times, Australian Broadcasting Corporation, and Sunday Times as showing he shares that same concern for quality of sources, and was willing to add them when this AFD forced cleanup. The assertions of being a multi-award winner have now been properly sourced. Per  Bio's basic criteria, depth of coverage is required only if notability is dependent on that coverage. Her notability is through her meeting WP:ANYBIO's "The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for one"... and such has been confirmed in reliable quality sources. Kudos to Phil!   Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 20:05, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * my point is regarding the 4 years, if it existed for 4 months I would not have nominated on it. sometimes (not always) the reason for poorly referenced articles that have existed for many years is that there exists little coverage of the subject. LibStar (talk) 11:46, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand your thoughts, but per WP:IMPROVE, WP:WIP, WP:DEADLINE, and WP:NOEFFORT, that no one's been working on it is a surmountable problem and not a reason to delete. I am glad that Phil Bridger dealt with the sourcing concerns.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 00:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep per coverage in WP:RS discussed above and awards. Andrea105 (talk) 03:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per other "keep" recommendations above. An Oscar-nominated film editor with multiple other awards and nominations in the field of editing satisfies WP:CREATIVE. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:45, 24 November 2009 (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.