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 Snowball delete. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 00:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NN media figure - all of the sources seem to lists and NN announcements. Don't be fooled by the fact that she directed a film. That is NN as well and has no significant media coverage. Fredrick day 16:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Related ANI discussion for background information. ^Ariel♥Gold 16:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. From what I have seen, the subject of this article lacks sufficient notability for a WP article. However, I am unfamiliar with the film and lack expertise, and this nomination appears to be motivated by the actions of one or two POV-pushing editors, as much as the substance of the article. If there is significant input from people with expertise in films, or familiarity with the film Wilding directed, that will be very helpful in determining the outcome. For the moment, I'm sticking with "keep." Article deletion should not be used as a punishment or retaliation for uncooperative editors. -Pete 16:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly I resent that, I'm a long-term editor and the concept of nominating an article because I don't like an editor is silly - I have examined the article in detail and the sources are NN - THAT is the basis on which this article has been nominated for AFD. Your KEEP is based on some odd version of solidarity, what keep can you present based on the sources presented in the article? --Fredrick day 17:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This keep vote can and should be disregarded in the final tally, at is is nothing but a point-making exercise. The voter even readily admits the subject fails WP:N. Tarc 18:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. My apologies for my hasty !vote. I was thrown off by the "don't be fooled" bit in the nomination, and by the fact that editors I respect have devoted significant efforts to this article. A quick spin around Google, however - and the comments below - have convinced me otherwise. I should have done that before my first comment - sorry. -Pete 18:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem I should have more carefully considered my wording and can understand how you might have taken it that way. --Fredrick day 18:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pete, in addition, if you find sources, even if they reference obscure sources I will write up the article on Ms. Wilding or the film. User:Acalamari and I are devoted savers of articles about minor celebrities and will put extra effort into it should the need arise--when people don't have a lot of information on the web, but do get mentioned enough, I think Wikipedia is a good place to make a little extra effort to put up a usable article. We do this usually with doctors, but occassional others--again, let me know if you ever need help in this area. KP Botany 03:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I have a long history with this article. I saw it when I was doing some New Page Patrol, and had concerns at the time, so I actively encouraged the original authors of the article to get the details in, and said that other editors would then massage that information to make it a suitably well written article for Wikipedia. In that process, I went to Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers to get help[1]. After that request, other editors started cleaning up the article, trying to find reliable sources, and began removing unsourced items. Editors have searched high and low for reliable sources for her notability, and after all the unsourced items were removed, we were left with very little[2]. I'm not attempting to punish anyone; I've worked hard on this article to try and prove her notability, but I am now convinced that my failure to do so is simply because she isn't notable. — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!)} 16:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Every single film producer that has ever worked would be able to produce some kind of evidence of success, acclaim, awards and the like. Notability should be more than that. --El Ingles 17:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and El Ingles. No evidence of notability. Biggest claim seems to be the film, and the only readily apparent review of that called it "not quite a home movie, but not exactly a professional production either." High praise. It may or may not be true that the editors doing good-faith work on the article have lost the will to try to make it work because of the actions of some pov warriors, but any supposedly misguided motives behind the nom would not change the fact that the article doesn't belong here in the first place. -- Vary | Talk 17:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, no attribution of notability to independent sources. One documentary film is not by itself enough. Why isn't Buddha Wild part of this nomination? --Dhartung | Talk 18:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Buddha Wild currently has a prod (and prod-2) tag on it. — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!)} 18:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Both the person and the film fail WP:N. Judging by the discussions about this both on the article talk page and at its AN/I entry, there has been a great deal of effort expended in trying to find reliable sources to establish notability, but they have failed because the material simply does not exist. Tarc 18:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: A couple messages at Wikiproject Films seem to support deletion, as well. -Pete 19:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Blatant self-promotion. I remember this article popping up during new page patrol in August[3], it was puffy G11 fodder then. The current version has been trimmed and sourced to neutrality, but it is sporadic and bare to the point of leaving little doubt of Wilding's obscurity. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 21:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I have strong doubts myself about the honesty of the article. I don't want to be used as a tool to promote someone's career, on blatant lies. Tonyx123 23:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt, so that we don't have to put up with her legal foolishness again. Non-notable person. We brought this article into the Wikipedia Intensive Care Unit, but I think it was dead on arrival. Can't save 'em all. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 03:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It appears we've been taken. But that's okay, we'll be taken again. And we'll correct it again when we need to. KP Botany 03:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment to closing admin: Please consider salting the article after deletion. I have a strong feeling that there would be an attempt to recreate the article, especially given how vehement the main proponent of the article was. — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!)} 04:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and WP:SNOW. Crazysuit 04:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as failing N and V. I was willing to help with the article, but I can't find any non-trivial coverage on either Factiva or the Australian New Zealand Reference Centre. So delete, but if someone comes up with some non-trivial coverage, I am willing to reconsider. Sarah 05:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. I agree that, based on the AN/I, this should be salted. Eusebeus 12:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.