Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Valerie Hoffman


 * 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) Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:58, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Valerie Hoffman

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Subject does not meet criteria of WP:N — raeky ( talk 20:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:BIO as unnotable; her IMDB entry pretty much says it all. Eusebeus (talk) 20:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep: If the material can be verified with better sources than IMDB, then she's right on the cusp of notability. Bearian (talk) 14:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Is being a producer of some very small films or very low-level crew on one or two films enough for WP:N? I don't think it is... — raeky ( talk 16:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Cmt The Woodsman is not a very small film. Major awards and Kevin Bacon as lead. Though it would be an easy shoe-in if she had been an exec on that. --Moloch09 (talk) 11:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - She is notable as a producer. Virtually every project she has been involved with has won an award. I have flagged this article for rescue, and I intend to work on it as soon as I can find the time. Untick (talk) 19:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Theres hundreds of credited people in a movie, just because the movie has got an award doesn't mean all of them need wikipedia pages. I don't believe your reasoning is valid enough for WP:N. There needs to be reliable secondary sources about HER. — raeky ( talk 21:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, and sometimes even more. But, and with respects, we are not discussing a PA or a Boom Operator or Gaffer. This is someone just a little higher up the ladder.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 15:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical  Cyclone  00:04, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Have expanded and sourced (not to IMDB), her involvement in and the awards of a few of her major films.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 00:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep We're not dealing with Steven Speilberg, but I think there's enough notability to warrant inclusion. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:04, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep after cutting all the trivial bits out of the biography. I think Michael's saved it.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  02:18, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I added a few FACT tags and removed any references to movies that are not listed on IMDB or any other site that I saw. Theres still a huge chunk of the article written as a autobiography without ANY references. The awards for the movies she was in is unreferenced, and the sources found (not imdb sources) for movies she was credited in are very poor, listing only one or two films. I admit shes credited as a producer for some films, but not listed on any of the films we have links for with that title. I don't know where IMDB gets their information, either from the studio or if they allow an individual to update their own pages with credits. But there needs to be more references that she was a co-producer for these films (reliable secondary sources). If all the information that was unreferenced was removed there wouldn't be anything left in the article except a list of films and her name. — raeky ( talk 03:37, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep needs more citations. Though some of the films are notable and award winning, the production credit on the multiple award The Woodsman is of "co-producer". This could mean virtually anything though the IMDB credit is quite high on the billing. --Moloch09 (talk) 11:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I discovered through research that Ms. Hoffman is credited under three names across the net. Valerie Hoffman, Valerie Howlett-Hoffman, and Valerie Howlett. Searches to include these additional names has filled in a lot of blanks and allowed the adding of additional citations to the article.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 08:08, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Impressive sleuthing I think this does push her over into the keep category, though the current work section is a bit like future news - they're always announcing films that won't happen (but the Sir Ben collaboration mitigates). The DGA credit is pretty normal though, shouldn't be peacocked. --Moloch09 (talk) 11:39, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I agree about the DGA as her works speak for themselves and being a member of the DGA is not a notability, simply a place where one pays dues.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 15:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete clear fail of WP:BIO most relevantly WP:CREATIVE. No non-trivial mentions in any independent reliable sources should equal no encyclopedia article. IMDB is not reliable for very much, certainly not to fulfill notability. From creative, full: "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique. The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums, or had works in many significant libraries." Once this is referenced, Valerie Hoffman is an epic fail.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear in case it was somehow missed, (a) IMDB is not used as a source in the article and (b) her works have indeed won both critical attention and awards, which has been asserted and referenced. She does pass WP:BIO in that (a) A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. (b) If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability. (c) Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject. Oops. She passes.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 14:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * cmt forget IMDB. Repeating back b to you with some bolding for emphasis. "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." There is only trivial coverage in secondary sources, the fact that unknown movies she had minor roles in (line producer?) won minor awards establishes nothing about her (if they do, we should have an article on every gaffer that worked on a movie that won a minor award), and there is no independent verification available about any facts of her life. Her work has received no critical attention and she has been the subject of no coverage in secondary sources. Oops. She fails.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - She meets the criteria for WP:CREATIVE, as she has played a major role in co-creating several a significant works as identified by the several award winning films that she has produced and co-produced. Esasus (talk) 17:54, 25 March 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.