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, default to keep, although the references - now creditably added - were not present at the time the earlier opinions to delete were given. Sandstein 21:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Jacobson[edit]

Sarah Jacobson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Delete due to lack of any reliable sources indicating this filmmaker meets the criteria outlined in WP:BIO. No evidence found that any of the films (or the given film-about-a-film) are notable either, or that the contribution to the filmzine named is substantial. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per WP:BIO Bec-Thorn-Berry 21:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-noteable. Davidpdx 11:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't Delete. I strongly disagree with deletion. This is an article about someone who made their mark on the world before the age of the internet blossomed, so they are not going to have a ton of information out there about them. But if you google "I Was a Teenage Serial Killer" and "Sarah Jacobson" you get 120 results and if you google "Mary Jane's Not a Virgin Anymore" and "Sarah Jacobson" you get 270 results. Are you telling me that every article on wikipedia that garners less activity than that should get deleted? Then half of wikipedia needs to get deleted. And just because you never heard of the film doesn't make it "virtually unknown". This page needs some editing, but it does not deserve deletion--David Straub 07:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at the page now. I think it's been much improved, including references to notability.--David Straub 01:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t mean to sound like a jerk, but I’ve got to point this out: Kinu, the editor who nominated the deletion of the Sarah Jacobson “due to lack of any reliable sources” has links on his user page to the following articles he has written: William Nordhaus, Kerry Killinger, Beno Udrih, Ray Fair, Melvin Sanders, Muskogee Turnpike, Indian Nation Turnpike. How many references are on these pages? A total of zero! Is there a little bit of unfairness in this process? A new user makes a page and she gets ganged up on by the more experienced editors. Meanwhile a more experienced editor makes the same mistakes, and nothing happens? --David Straub 01:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The articles I've created aren't up for deletion... this one is. The point is not that this article was not properly sourced per Wikipedia convention, but any attempt on my part to find a source was met with difficulty, unlike, say, an article on a prominent NBA player would otherwise be. If you feel that the ones I have created are unfairly excluded from any scrutiny, feel free to tag those as inappropriate and/or nominate those per WP:AFD. And for future reference, I would avoid comments such as a lot of these editors who propose deletions write really horrible articles themselves, and you might want to point that out, as you noted here, since it certainly borders on a personal attack on me given the situation. I would instead focus your attention positively, on improving the article(s) in question. That's all I have to say on this matter. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said on your talk page, not personal, but just trying to open perspective on this. The comment was/is directed at a whole slew of editors/admin I've run into. If you take it personally, that's fine.--David Straub 11:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't Delete. Sarah Jacobson is definitely notable. Her first two film won awards and were extremely popular at film festivals throughout the U.S. and Canada. She is a low budget independent filmmaker who should be regarded in the same light as filmmakers such as Vivienne Dick, Ron Rice, George Kuchar, to name just a few extremely independent filmmakers working well outside of "the industry". Just like those filmmakers, she shouldn't be judged by her recognition in mainstream media but rather by the impact her films made, and will continue to make, within the communities she affected, such as the filmmaking community, in which she won several awards, the 'women's community', where her films were lauded, among others. Such is also the case when one considers her contribution to the film fanzine, Joanie4Jackie, which is of considerable importance to various women's artistic communities and would not have been as important without the contributions of directors such as Sarah Jacobson.-Intheshadows 10:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have added information and references to the article. Please review.-Intheshadows 11:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:BIO and nomination. --SunStar Net^talk 01:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't Delete. It would seem that we would all get along a lot better and Wiki would be a whole lot better if people spent as much time improving articles as they did criticising them. I don't know much about Ms Jacobson but surely some information is better than none. Deleting this will not exactly encourage other contributors. I have added one book I found her in. Mgoodyear 16:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please cite specific reasons as to how this article meets inclusion criteria (i.e., WP:BIO), rather than making generalizations about the supposed dysfunction of other Wikipedia editors. --Kinu ^t/_c 16:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if the above is aimed at me or not (mine was not aimed at anyone but a comment on Wiki subcultures) - I did add a source to the page in the meantime. However I did think we were trying to build an encyclopedia not demolish one. If there are links to the page from other articles (which I verified), that seems sufficient. WP:BIO is only a guide, is contentious, and is fairly loose. The default should be to leave and improve. Mgoodyear 16:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Jacobson definitely meets the criteria for inclusion. She has been reviewed, interviewed and written about in many national publications including The New York Times, Village Voice, Film Threat, Spin , Bust and Austin Chronicle among others. She and her work are known internationally, not just in the U.S. She has without doubt received recognition in her specific field and her work has been championed by film critics such as Roger Ebert and Amy Taubin, filmmaker Allison Anders and musician Kim Gordon, among many others. She has been written about by Wheeler Winston Dixon, one of the foremost authorities on "Underground" film, and cinema in general. Upon her death memorial screenings were held in cities across the U.S., including New York, San Francisco and Austin and even as far away as Switzerland. As we see, Sarah Jacobson meets the guidelines for inclsion in every way as they are outlined in "Guide for inclusion" on the WP:BIO page. -Intheshadows 20:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Retain -- I shudder at the notion that anybody less visible in the mainstream media than "a prominent NBA player" fails to meet notability criteria. I'm a guy, and not into indie film, and I recognize the name. Wikipedia's got to be about more than jocks and List of Pokémon by National Pokédex number or it's just a pathetic joke. --Orange Mike 03:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't Delete as per Intheshadows's reasoning. - Throw 06:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Kinu, you make a good point about having to conform with the WP:BIO, so here is why I think Sarah Jacobson fits the profile:

The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field.: The article has established through references and citations that Jacobson's work was noted and praised in the film industry, especially her field, the Independent Film Industry. Painters, sculptors, architects, engineers, and other professionals whose work is widely recognized (for better or worse) and who are likely to become a part of the enduring historical record of that field.: For every genre and generation of artists there are a number of examples that stand as representatives of that field. Both I Was a Teenage Serial Killer (1993) and Mary Jane's Not a Virgin Anymore (1997) have been praised as representative of the [[1]] independent film movement.--David Straub 12:28, 18 December 2006 (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.