Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julin Jean


 * 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. The consensus would seem to say that, although there is at least one decent source in the article, there are not sufficient other sources to make the subject notable at this time. She may well be notable in a few months' time, but that is beyond the scope of AfD. As a side note, i would advise the experienced editors who participated here to make more effort to help those less experienced rather than nitpicking arguments and bombarding them with alphabet soup acronyms. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   00:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Julin Jean

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Speedy quite decently contested, but still has questionable notability. delete UtherSRG (talk) 08:12, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - not notable. Refs are questionable as to reliability.  #1 is passing mention on a blog; #2 is a Facebook page; #3 is a in-depth promotional interview on a website; #4 is a Vimeo page; #5 is a promotional interview on a different website; #6-8 are blogs; #9 is Amazon.com site for one of her CDs; and #10 is the same as #5.  Since blogs, video hosting sites, social networking sites, and on-line stores are not suitable references, you are left with 2 promotional interviews on websites.  Doesn't come close to meeting WP:ENT. (GregJackP (talk) 14:03, 20 May 2010 (UTC))
 * Keep - All the overzealous people on this site are such a detriment to the wikipedia community at large. I thought the idea of wikipedia was to share information that people would want to know, not repress it. I've adequately demonstrated that Julin Jean is "notable," and even if the references aren't the NY Times and Reuters, they are all legitimate, verifiable sources. It's not like I'm using somebody's personal blog as a reference. These are INDUSTRY BLOGS that are set up almost entirely to disseminate industry NEWS. Eatmocake (talk) 16:09, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment – I would suggest you be careful when pointing a finger at others when referring to their "overzealous" actions, that finger could be equally pointed at your actions. The purpose of Wikipedia is to provide access to information that is  verifiable using Wikipedia specific criteria.  It is not an avenue to present non-notable people, bands, ideas, etc.  I suggest you read reliable source for information about what is acceptable as a source.  In addition, I suggest you also review WP:NOTE.   ttonyb  (talk) 16:22, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment – Okay, playing devil's advocate, why is my page being targeted so aggressively when a site like Jenn Sterger has been up since 2008 and has fewer references than mine, and of equal or lesser reliability?Eatmocake (talk) 16:28, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment – Eatmorecake, given your use of the terms "my page" and "mine", you may want to read WP:OWNERSHIP.  ttonyb  (talk) 17:20, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment – It would be really nice if someone would post something helpful instead of nitpicking everything to death and telling me to read endless pages of rules. Yes, I know I don't OWN the article. I was using those words to indicate that I had originally posted the page. Sorry for misspeaking.Eatmocake (talk) 17:46, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - see WP:OTHERSTUFF. As a sidenote, I looked at the other article in the same manner I did yours.  While there are not what I consider sufficient references on the Jenn Sterger page itself, there are clearly sufficient references that could be added, including from the NY Daily News, ESPN, SI, Newsday (and that is from just the 1st page of GHits).  Julin Jean did not have the same number of sources available.  GregJackP (talk) 16:52, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That argument is a prime case of WP:ATA. But thank you for finding an article that needs AFD's attention. It's now listed. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:57, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank-you for mentioning WP:ATA. I had never read this page until I saw your reference to it. I discovered some areas for improvement in my own contributions here, always a good thing. I suggest that others who have not yet visited this page do so ASAP. Evalpor (talk) 17:54, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Doesn't the Houston Chronicle link qualify under WP:BAND as a reliable and independent source? Its not a reprint of a press release.  Its not from a student paper.   Its not trivial coverage such as announcing tour dates.  RedRaiderG  —Preceding undated comment added 17:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC).


 * Delete - Per reasons stated by UtherSRG and GregJackP. Kiteinthewind  Leave a message! 16:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and GregJackP. As to the Houston Chronicle article, it does establish the existence of the album, but as it is stated to be 'independently' released (i.e. self-published) rather more is needed to show that it has notability. Her parts seem to be fairly minor in fairly minor films. I've de-linked one that went to a disambig page which didn't include the film in question. Peridon (talk) 19:49, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - actually, most of those are leading roles in independent films. It's a little frustrating how much subjectivity people seem to be attaching to the word "notability." If something isn't notable, a major paper like the Chronicle isn't going to waste space on it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eatmocake (talk • contribs) 20:50, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Having just read WP:ATA earlier today, I am going to agree with Eatmocake in regard to the "subjectivity" issue. The article in the the Houston Chronicle is adequately in-depth, and establishes notability, IMO. The subject may not strike everyone in here as an artist to be taken seriously, but I have to come down on the side of notability having been established, per the various references cited by GregJackP. I am in disagreement with Peridon vis-a-vis the characterization of the Houston Chronicle. Evalpor (talk) 19:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not demeaning the Houston Chronicle. I am saying that as this is a self-released album I would need to see more evidence than one article to believe there was any importance to it. This is the only review of the album that I can find outside the world of blogs - and there's not a vast amount there from what I can see. (The number of Julins involved with transitions in the scientific sense is amazing...) Otherwise, her 'main' film appears to be 'Cherry Bomb', and I quote: "Principal photography began on March 2nd, 2010 and wrapped March 28, 2010". This doesn't seem much time, and "On April 30th, 2010, the first official trailer was released on the Cherry Bomb website via YouTube" so it isn't even out yet. I regard the article as promotional, especially in view of the timing. If the film is a success, OK. An article may be merited. Here and now, I can't see much for it to stand on. Peridon (talk) 09:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep: The Chronical coverage is good enough for me to establish notability: it's a reliable, independent source that covers the subject in depth. Another source like it would be preferable, but I'm willing to accept notability based on just that one. Buddy431 (talk) 21:00, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment The Chronicle is a reliable and verifiable source, however one article does not establish WP:NOTE which states: "Multiple sources are generally expected.", and WP:BIO, see fn7 which states: "An actor who has been featured in magazines has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple magazine feature articles, by magazine article writers." Likewise WP:MUSICBIO states: "Has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works."  The article now has one reliable, verifiable source, clearly not enough to establish general notability, much less the requirements of either WP:ENT or WP:MUSICBIO. GregJackP (talk) 14:24, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess I was looking at the basic criteria at wp:BIO, which seems to indicate that multiple sources are only required if "the depth of coverage is not substantial". If it's the norm to require multiple sources to establish notability, than this person does not seem to meet that threshold, at least with the current sources. Buddy431 (talk) 17:49, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete I am not willing to accept single articles such as the one given here as notability for media or media figures--only a very few internationally important sources can do that. Additionally I  am not sure of the accuracy of the article;  "Two recent films in which Julin had leading roles, Sweatshop and Up & Down, will be screened at the 2010 Cannes Film Festival. " The  Festival finished yesterday, and it does not seem that the films were shown.  From the refs given, they were actually shown --if even that can be verified-- at the Festival's "Le Marché du Film", where any professional can show a film. if Cherry Bomb (film) becomes notable, then she might have   a notable role. Basically, "Not Yet Notable"  DGG ( talk ) 22:07, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The Marché du Film site appears to be inaccessible at present, and I can't find elsewhere any evidence of the films referred to being shown. There are 'going to be' refs, but no 'shown' ones I can find. Peridon (talk) 19:41, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shimeru (talk) 22:29, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete - The only reliable source is the Houston Chronicle review of her album. And if one examines the context of the album review, it is in a section titled "Local Bands" which is fairly typical for any newspaper covering a local music scene.  As such, this album review, by itself does not represent the significant coverage that is needed to establish notability.  If I were to pin notability on a single sources, that single source would need to be at least national in scope (not a local band section of a newspaper), and would need to treat the person as the primary subject of the article and be in depth (not an album review). -- Whpq (talk) 16:49, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per DGG. My boyfriend the producer went to the 63rd Cannes Film Festival and all I got was a cute blue watch.  His boyfriend is a sysop at Wikiepdia and he does not get an article.  Not every film screened at Cannes is notable.   That is why we have WP:CREATIVE. Bearian (talk) 20:08, 1 June 2010 (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.