Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lisa M. Hansen


 * 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   no consensus. No real significant strong consensus in either direction at this point in time. Of course, merge discussions may still take place, at Talk:Lisa M. Hansen. -- Cirt (talk) 03:29, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Lisa M. Hansen

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Was a producer for some Low budget Movies, Anything, Sources are slim other than mentioned she was a producer for X film. Weaponbb7 (talk) 20:42, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Sufficient career achievement to merit inclusion. Carrite (talk) 22:43, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * We are trying to Create a Biography not a CV...Weaponbb7 (talk) 22:46, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. CVs are written to present an individual in the best possible light in the pursuit of employment. They offer a history of their professional background that oftentimes establishes notability. This is the same goal of Wikipedia. While this article looks nothing like a resume, it does appropriately establish notability according to WP:CREATIVE. Cindamuse (talk) 07:50, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a myth that a wikipedia article should or must "establish notability." Rather a wikipedia article should present or summarize information that has been documented about the subject in reliable independent sources.  This serves NPOV, a basic and non-negotiable policy.  160.39.212.104 (talk) 23:48, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. You have a very valid point that I earlier completely misread. In rephrasing my comment above, one of the goals of Wikipedia is to present subjects and articles where notability has been established, and supported by reliable sources according to WP:CREATIVE. Thank you for commenting and allowing me to clarify my statement. Cindamuse (talk) 07:50, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. The article certainly needs expansion of the biographical information of the subject. That said, notability is appropriately established according to WP:CREATIVE. Executive Producer of over 70 films and author of a screenplay that was made into a movie. I am not personally familiar with her work, but they all feature notable actors. She is also founder/head of Cinetel Films production company, producing and distributing over 70 films. Cindamuse (talk) 23:10, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Forget notability for a moment. In your first sentence you acknowledge the need for biographical information.  But if no independent sources about her life or work exist, how is a biographical article possible in conformity with NPOV?  Sure, we might be able to construct a CV for her.  But wikipedia is not the place for CVs.  As you said yourself, "CVs are written to present an individual in the best possible light."  How do you reconcile that with NPOV?  160.39.212.104 (talk) 23:48, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment -Not every article is ready for prime time. This one is woefully short of biographical information as it currently sits, although there is more than enough career work showing to demonstrate the subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. Guidelines for inclusion are just benchmarks, there is no one-size-fits-all universal rule that every subject of a Wikipedia article must have, say, three independent articles about them as a subject which pop up in a 15 second drive-by Google search. An executive producer of that many films is worthy of inclusion, regardless of the relative inapplicability of film guidelines to executive producers. Carrite (talk) 15:51, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand your instinct that an exec producer of so many films just has to be notable. But think for a moment where your instinct comes from.  It probably comes from your memory and observations of countless other, more high-profile execs, who really are notable, in the sense that biographers have noted them.  But notability doesn't come packaged in neat categories.  The fact that many exec producers of many films are notable, doesn't transfer to the the whole group.  Sure, this person has accomplished a lot, but if no reliable source has noticed it, the accomplishment is unfortunately not enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia based on reliable sources.  And addressing your comment about the 15-second Google search: I've had a look in Lexisnexis, a much more extensive newspaper and magazine database, and her name only appears in lists of film credits (like  from google news) and trivial mentions (e.g. "CineTel's Paul Hertzberg and Lisa Hansen are producing the film, with Paul and VCL's Datty Ruth as executive producers").  160.39.212.104 (talk) 16:30, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * thus I nomed it for deletion because there was nothing to write a Bio about her. We are not Linkedin thus we need more than a list of accomplishments Weaponbb7 (talk) 16:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm confused now. The subject is clearly notable, and the article has content, context, and sources properly cited. Under what exact policy are you nominating this article for deletion? Cindamuse (talk) 22:50, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Notability (people) Requires several element to write a Biography: Reliable Secondary non-trivial sourcing, Movie reviews that mention her are routine and trivial. No to mention we need sources ABOUT HER... NOT only ones that mention her. This is at best a list of films that Lisa M. Hansen has helped produce and a farce of Bioagraphy  Weaponbb7 (talk) 23:10, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. So, to answer my question... under what deletion policy has this nomination been made? Cindamuse (talk) 23:37, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Failing Notability (people) Weaponbb7 (talk) 23:43, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. Let's not forget notability. On Wikipedia, notability determines whether a topic merits its own article. NPOV is addressed by providing factual information, supported by secondary and third-party sources. Content that will enhance this article include information about her early life, date of birth, place where she grew up, information on her family, educational background, things of that nature. Cindamuse (talk) 00:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Without independent coverage (i.e. the "secondary and third-party sources" which you agree are necessary) how is a biographical article possible to write? It's not a coincidence that the possibility of writing a neutral article from multiple independent sources is how wikipedia defines notability.  160.39.212.104 (talk) 13:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, according to WP:SOURCES, self-published sources are considered reliable with regards to themselves. Self-published information is only forbidden in the case when you're editing an article about a third-party. For example, on this article, it is fine to use her website to say that she graduated from X school, but you may not say in the article on X school that she graduated there using her website as the source. — Code  Hydro  19:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Right. But for a subject that is only documented in self-published sources or in interviews (i.e. if no third party sources exist), you run up against the spirit if not the letter of npov, because all the wikipedia article can ever contain are things that the subject has said about him/herself.  The result is effectively an autobiography.  Of course this is a moot point here, where no self-published sources or interviews seem to exist.  160.39.212.104 (talk) 20:10, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Please see my comment below. — Code Hydro  22:04, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - no reliable sources to establish notability. Directory entries are not reliable sources and only confer evidence of existence.--74.57.5.235 (talk) 01:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep, this nomination is inappropriate considering the large body of notable work she has played a major role in producing (just take a look at the 30 or so wikipedia articles that contain the name "Lisa Hansen" or "Lisa M. Hansen"). Clearly an unambiguously worth of inclusion as per WP:AUTHOR. — Code Hydro  20:25, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. Added even more sources, such as this independent bio (note how it says she is a guest), as well as a couple of interviews here (video) and here. There are certainly more sources, but I've only skimmed through a the first few results on Google. The main difficulty in finding interviews in bios is not so much because they don't exist, but because the results are buried in mountains of pages noting her as a producer for the over 70 films she has led. — Code  Hydro  21:55, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The independent Bio its little more than a press releaseWeaponbb7 (talk) 22:54, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Put text of bio into Google. It is the only result, therefore it is not a press release, or at least not one mass distributed over the web. — Code Hydro  23:02, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I use press Release for lack of a better word as it sole point is to advertise this woman attandence Weaponbb7 (talk) 23:16, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * 1/ That's no "independent bio." She was a speaker at the event.  Typically in those situations the event organizers will ask the speaker in advance to prepare a few statements of introduction.  Whether that's what happened there or not, we still don't know the source of that information--and thus it is totally unreliable.  It is, in fact, clear promotional hagiography--"one of the most prolific and successful...transformed the company...worked on projects with Quentin Tarantino[subtle...very subtle]".  Notice that it induced an editor to copy the hagiographic language into the article ("Cinetel Films, among the largest independent film studios...one of the most prolific and successful Producers in Los Angeles").  Bad sources lead to bad articles.  The problem is that with no independent sources to correct the hagiography, the article is unfixable.  2/ The youtube video is not third-party (but I suppose is usable as a source in an article on the film if other, independent sources exist on it).  3/ The recap of the panel discussion is not even about her. 160.39.212.104 (talk) 03:08, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter whether or not she herself is the original source. You are misinterpreting the independence requirement. If we used your argument then Wikipedia would lose 95% of its sources with regards to biographical information. For example, pretty much every journalist reporting on any famous person generally go with whatever they gain from that famous person from an interview, or base their reports on somebody else's interview, which can inevitably be traced back to the original person. The main thing is that somebody who is independent of her (as in not owned by her) considered her important enough to make a bio of her. — Code Hydro  03:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No journalist worth his salt would uncritically reprint the assessment (probably Hansen's own self-assessment) that she is "one of the most prolific and successful Producers in Los Angeles." A good journalist writing a profile of her would interview not only her but her colleagues and co-professionals, no?  Maybe even certain rivals.  So, yes, independence is meaningful.  Unfortunately, the hagiography we're discussing involved no journalist.  It's unsigned, unreliable, bereft of facts, and replete with puffery.  And autobiographical sources beget autobiographical articles.  160.39.212.104 (talk) 04:39, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I never said the said the source was ideal and I agree with you that regard, but it'll have to do for now until better sources are found. Either way, it is more than enough to confirm independent notability to satisfy inclusion requirements, especially when considering that the sheer volume of her notable work arguably satisfies inclusion whether or not such a bio existed. Deletion simply is not appropriate here. If you feel that the statement is not PoV balanced, then find a critical source and add it to the article. — Code Hydro  14:10, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's notability policy supports deletion of articles where NPOV is impossible to attain because no independent sources exist. That seems to be the case here.  Why do you persist on describing the panel discussion "bio" as independent when it clearly is not?  Her involvement with many films is not in dispute, but notability doesn't transfer like that.  Otherwise the gaffer would be notable too.  128.59.179.252 (talk) 18:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. The problem may be solved by renaming the article. CineTelFilms is an important independent film producer. It has also worked with major companies. I believe CineTelfilms is notable enough to warrant an article (like for example Miramax and Village Roadshow). Only a small amount of space has to be reserved for Lisa M. Hansen and Paul Herzberg, as they are very hard to source. The fact that the company has made films with actors like Fran Drescher, Dolph Lundgren and Kiefer Sutherland should amount to something. Their total body of work is certainly notable for a small independent company. An article on CinTelFilms and their founders should be in Wikipedia. -- JHvW  (talk)   18:53, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 *  Delete  - It seems incredible based on the number of credits, but searching for her name with or without the middle initial and film or her name and producer in google news archives comes up with nothing but credits/trivial coverage, not the kind of substantial coverage one needs to pass WP:BIO or WP:ARTIST. No indication other RSs unaffiliated with the subject have material coverage. The FanExpoCanada promotional piece does not even come close. I'd change my !vote if anybody can come up with a couple of newspaper profiles or something like that. Novaseminary (talk) 23:52, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Producing that many notable films, makes you a notable producer.  D r e a m Focus  04:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. I have now added three sources   which have allowed me to greatly expand the article with a new "Life" section. The third source is a bit iffy, but it does seem independent from them. Either way, taking into account the first two sources (and other older sources), independent notability should now be firmly established. — Code  Hydro  15:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Source #1--the link doesn't work and I don't see any corresponding source in the article. Help?  Source #2 is unattributed and unreliable.  The LA Times publishes wedding and death announcements too, with information and prose submitted directly by interested parties.  This is a business announcement.  Source #3--again, just because something may be published by someone independent, doesn't mean the actual source is independent.  Here, the material is unattributed and therefore unreliable.  It's the same kind of puffery we've already seen and discussed here--not just "a bit iffy."  160.39.212.104 (talk) 15:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * For the first link, use your browser's ctrl+f find function and look for "hansen"--you'll find the name mentioned 10 times. You'll find rather long passages dealing with both. An alternate link for the first source is . The second source is fine since it is supported by other sources. — Code Hydro  16:02, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I found the article here. It's really about Cinetel, so it supports Novaseminary's idea below.  160.39.212.104 (talk) 18:20, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per Dream Focus's cogent rationale which is firmly grounded in wikipedia policy. 160.39.212.104 (talk) 15:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * What policies do you think have been violated here? Did you mean guidelines?  I think we meet WP:Entertainer quite well. Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. I'd say producer is a significant role in the production.   D r e a m Focus  19:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:ENT applies to "Actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and television personalities." Her acting certainly does not meet WP:ENT. It is a stretch to say that producing is a "role" as this guideline means it. The guideline seems to be referring to on-air, on-stage, what have you, "roles". I think she would have to meet WP:BIO's general requirements / WP:GNG. Novaseminary (talk) 19:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment Since a new article on the company has been created, I am ok with merging/redirecting this article to CineTel Films. Novaseminary (talk) 16:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * See this article's talk page. Most people seem against such merging. — Code Hydro  16:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * All I see on the talk page is 1/ an inconclusive discussion between you and JHvW and 2/ a request from the article's creator to leave the article alone because he says Hansen deserves recognition as a female in a male-dominated business. Of course, it's not up to wikipedia to recognize achievement until independent sources have done so first.  So as far as we know there is one relatively in-depth source on Cinetel (focusing, by the way, more on Hertzberg than Hansen).  This is a good start for an article on Cinetel.  160.39.212.104 (talk) 18:29, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for rescue by the Article Rescue Squadron.    Snotty Wong   yak 00:23, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Rename/merge into an article about CineTelFilms. The sourcing here is plainly insufficient for a biography, so presenting information about Hansen in an article about CineTelFilms seems to be the most sensible course of action. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:49, 11 September 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.