Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peg Norman


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Steven Zhang  The clock is ticking....  01:00, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Peg Norman

 * – ( View AfD View log )
 * Does not meet WP:POLITICIAN as a necessary article. Only uses one source and lacks content. Aaaccc (talk), 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  — Logan Talk Contributions 23:34, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  — Logan Talk Contributions 23:34, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment Editors might decide to look at her film My Left Breast and decide if its having multiple awards and nominations, and being the recipient of multiple review and critical commentary bring her in under WP:CREATIVE AS the filmmaker, even if her coverage as a politician is seen by some to be weak for a Politico.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 04:05, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Since the My Left Breast article is only two sentences wouldn't it make more sense to merge Norman's article with it? Aaaccc (talk), 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * We don't usually merge larger articles into a smaller artricle simply because the smaller is "smaller". And being a sourcable part of her overall life, information about the filmmaker's years of political aspirations has no place in an article about a film. As it has been the recipient of multiple critical comemntary and review, far better to allow the film article to itself grow through the course of normal editing.   Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 23:06, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 04:13, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 04:13, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.  — Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 04:16, 11 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep per having filmed a notable film. Does not meet WP:POLITICIAN by itself, but still notable because of the film. Should not be penalized for not meeting one type of notability. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 04:34, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed, guideline does not say that someone failing WP:POLITICIAN cannot otherwise show notablility under WP:FILMMAKER.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 04:38, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep as above AdamCaputo (talk) 17:17, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect/Merge to My Left Breast. Google News search finds several other Peg Normans and Peggy Normans, but only one small item about her political campaign, and nothing about her connection to the film. All the coverage, reviews and awards cited above by Schmidt are about the film; I could find no evidence of any such coverage, reviews or awards for her personally or for her part in making the film. This suggests that the film may be notable but she is not; notability is not inherited. The article about the film needs to be expanded to show these awards and reviews, and there could be an added sentence or two about Peg Norman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MelanieN (talk • contribs) 17:08, September 17, 2011
 * With respects, WP:INHERITED is an essay, and guideline itself clarifies how an individual can be notable through their work. WP:FILMMAKER quite specifically states that an individual can be determined notable if "The person has created a significant or well-known work that has been the subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" and/or if "The person's work has won significant critical attention"... and as you yourself note, her her work HAS had such atention. This individual qualifies as notable per her work and per guideline, and such notability is not to be dismissed through misapplicatiuon of an essay. The sources offered above were to show her meeting the applicable guideline WP:FILMMAKER, and they do just that... showing this filmmaker notable through her work having received "significant critical attention", and the coverage of her work need not be about her personally.   As I explained above, the article on the film is about the film and BLP information about the filmmaker's years of political aspirations has no place in an non BLP article about a film. And in your own searches, perhaps you missed the quite substantive article about her in The Hour?   Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 23:04, 17 September 2011 (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.