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, even given the multitude of spurious !votes. —Kurykh 01:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Hagins

[edit]
Emily Hagins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

14-year-old director of an independent film. Has sources, but I don't think they establish her notability. NawlinWiki 17:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I'm actually going to go against WP:CRYSTAL for a very good reason here. I think that as it stands right now, the subject does not have suitable notability. HOWEVER...Both Ispy and Appraiser have noted two resources coming in the near future, either of which would change my mind. As such, I'm not going to push a position to delete when it's clear to me that better sources are forthcoming. And since neither one will probably be available during the life of this AfD, I feel that it would be better to err on the side of keeping the article. Trusilver 20:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Would IMDb be useful? The film is called "Zombie Girl:The Movie". Here, also, is a link to the official website, which links to an article on Emily Hagins and the film from Teen Vogue magazine [1]--Ispy1981 20:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've seen a lot of false information on this discussion so I will take the opportunity to correct some now (I am Emily's mom, so this will not be a keep or delete pitch). Emily wrote, produced and directed and edited Pathogen between the ages of 11 and 12. She won the Texas Filmmaker's Production Fund grant at the age of 12 and was the youngest recipient in the history of the grant program. Her movie was NEVER shown at Butt-Numb-A-Thon 5 or any other Butt-Numb-A-Thon, although Harry Knowles intended to show the trailer at BNAT 7, the tight schedule would not allow even the trailer to run. Emily is now 14 and speaks to and encourages youth groups interested in filmmaking as well as encourages adults interested in low-budget or indy filmmaking. She has also, since Pathogen was completed, written her second feature script, produced and directed three short films, partipated in the last two 48-hour film competitions in Austin and worked on several other local young filmmakers' projects. She believes in giving back to the community and has given time and money to Katrina relief efforts and The Capital Area Food bank. She is an intensely hard-working and passionate about movies...making and watching them. She is hoping, with the proper funding, that she can start production on her next feature in summer 2008 as she is currently in pre-production.70.253.85.61 13:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)Megan Hagins[reply]
  • Response Thank you for the information. If you see errors in the article in the future, feel free to point them out on the Talk:Emily Hagins page, as this page will soon be frozen when the AfD discussion is complete. And kudos to you for raising such an exceptional young woman.--Appraiser
  • Response Ms. Hagins, thank you for the information and thank you for your level-headed response to the AfD discussion. I feel that we have reached a consensus barring any other issues arising. I do hope that as you see your daughter in internet publications and print media you forward links to the discussion page. While it seems that your daughter does a great many truly remarkable things with her time, they don't become notable unless someone writes about them...I certainly hope to see a lot written about her in the future. Best wishes. Trusilver 18:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response Besides The Austin American Statesman and several articles in the Austin Chronicle, the two most widely read newspapers in Austin, and the internationally distributed Teen Vogue article from the October 2006 issue, there was an article in Rue Morgue Magazine in (I think it was) the March 2007 issue. Numerous online postings on sites such as The Austin Film Society, Dread Central and Aint It Cool News have also appeared (google Emily Hagins, and you will find how many online references there are). In addition, as I finally figured out (I think I figured out) how to cite a book, Emily was mentioned in Girls Make Media by Mary Celeste Kearney as well as some of Kearney's other academic research. Being a guest at CONvergence was a true delight and an honor, but, I assure you, there is a solid foundation of written material about Emily. I am not trying to make the case, whether or not she should be listed in this "encyclopedia" but only to note that, indeed, in addition to my highly biased opinion that she has earned her laurels and is not sitting on them, there has been a lot written about Emily. According to the rules you have stated, this fact qualifies her as "notable". Because I find your rules and policies rather dense and hard to follow, I'll leave it up to the other folks who enjoy dealing with the rules, posting and editing at WP to do the Citations and to determine if Emily belongs here. 70.253.85.61 01:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)Megan Hagins[reply]
Comment. Actually the sci-fi convention she is guest-of-honor at is a terribly minor one and barely notable in itself. I have a tough time declaring someone notable for making a movie that according to WP:NF is not notable. Trusilver 18:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. CONvergence is the third largest non-profit convention in North America. "Terribly minor" my ass. Iceberg3k 02:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I just got home from said convention a few hours ago. If that's a "terribly minor" one by your standards (whatever they may be), I'm scared to go to one you might consider important. Shatteredshards 22:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have to agree with the above two here, though not in the same terms as "terribly minor, my ass". This convention has attracted the likes of a Who's Who of sci-fi--Len Wein, Larry Niven, and Marv Wolfman to name a few. Also, Forrest J. Ackerman was a guest of honor at the first one, and you don't get Forry if you're "terribly minor".--Ispy1981 07:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Admin note that this editor has gone down the list of every article nominated for deletion on this day and left the same message. Better. Trusilver 04:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Peter 13:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Reply And Robert Rodriguez made his first film for roughly four times that (I take that back. Rodriguez made El Mariachi for EXACTLY that amount) and probably went much the same route as this girl. Your point?--Ispy1981 07:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Comment. The Butt-Numb-a-Thon isn't really a "fan convention", but a powerful film fest in its own right (and with its own Wikipedia entry, natch). Among others, films premiered at BNAT include all three "The Lord of the Rings" movies, "Knocked Up", "King Kong (2005)", "The Passion of the Christ", and "V for Vendetta". Attendees include Peter Jackson, Eli Roth, Tim McCanlies, and many others. It's kind of a big deal. 433 10:00, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. "According to IMDB, her most significant movie had a budget of $7,000." As we all can probably name at least a couple movies with million dollar budgets that completely sucked and wasted our time, I'm not quite understanding your point. Shatteredshards 22:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and comment Weak keep based on CONvergencecon info and fringe sources, as well as upcoming documentary.--Ispy1981 07:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)without prejudice to recreation as this is obivously someone on the rise. It truly doesn't concern me either that an admin who originally voted delete is going down the list and looking for any reason to nullify others' votes. No, not at all. And, BTW, I'm a veteran user. You can check my contribs, find any flaws you like, but you won't.--Ispy1981 22:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not an admin, just someone who gets upset when I see an AfD that is obviously being manipulated. I have seen regrettably few people who are yelling 'keep' without giving any justification for the original problem - assertation of notability. If she were directing "Mission Impossible 4", I would say 'keep' in a moment. But she's not, she has created a movie that is, in itself, not even close to being notable under WP:FILM. For the sake of curiosity I'd still like an answer to this question - "If this girl's main claim to notability is a movie that she's making, how can she be deemed notable if her movie isn't?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trusilver (talk • contribs) 18:39, 8 July 2007
  • Response I don't believe that I have violated WP:CANVASS or unduly manipulated the discussion. I posted a short, neutral note on the talk:CONvergence (convention) page (the only article currently linking here), on three personal talk pages of Wikipedians I have prior experience with (but no prior knowledge of their opinion on this topic), and a note on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Horror, which seems appropriate, given their interest (OK - I did render an opinion on that one - perhaps I shouldn't have). But again, I don't know if Horror Film aficionados would want to keep this or not. I was mainly trying to increase awareness of the discussion. I agree that Pathogen doesn't meet notability guidelines, however I think a relatively brief biography of Hagins is appropriate given the film, several additional short films, her mention in a couple of local newspapers, her invitation to speak at a convention, the documentary currently being produced about her [2], and her mention in Girls Make Media (I hope to find a copy of this for a citation). Her article doesn't deserve the same attention as Nancy Pelosi's, but probably is as important as Arvind, Stephenie Cratz, or Joe Johnson (football), none of which has been targeted for deletion (as of 7/9/07). Humbly,--Appraiser 20:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't see any problem at all with dropping a note to people that you know, I'm a little more uneasy about the note on the CONvergence article. I think it's placing a note in a location where you are going to find supporters. I think of it like posting to the White Power article that there's an AfD for Martin Luther King Jr. (okay... I know that was a little over the top, but you get what I'm saying :) ) Overall though, I don't think you violated canvassing either, I would point more toward some tip off that has gone on outside of Wikipedia; especially when it comes to first time users that have come here just to argue against deletion. Trusilver 20:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, see my position comments above. Trusilver 20:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • People who write listy-type articles (myself included) hate to see red-links in their lists, so I thought the people watching the CONvergence article would want to know that one of their BLUE WL might soon turn RED. Yes, it is a biased audience, but perhaps some of the few here who would care if it went away. As for the deluge of interest from first-time contributers, at CONvergence, Ms. Hagins impressed several audiences of several hundred computer-literate geeky people. I attended three of her events that had people crowded in the doorway, because all the seats were filled. (Unfortunately this original research can't be added to the article.) But I wouldn't be surprised if some of them came home, looked her up, and were surprised to see the AfD, and made their first contribution. It is a sample biased by people with some knowledge of her, which doesn't seem unreasonable.--Appraiser 21:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - as previously stated, she has received notable recognition in newspapers, from the Texas Filmakers Fund and was also a Guest of Honor (and compelling speaker) at a regional convention which drew 2700+ attendees. This recognition, coupled with her youth, make her a very interesting subject worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia.--Slindorff 03:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)— Slindorff (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

KEEP - Excuse me? Emily was 12 and 13 when she wrote the screen play, directed and produced it and that is not notable? CONVergence, the third largest non-profit sci-fi convention in North America is a minor convention? Getting a grant from the Texas Filmmakers Production Fund is not notable? Excuse me? Wow. These comments are making my head spin. I wonder what your definition of notable is? Dare I say this, and am I going to get jumped on all over for saying it? - Or is it because she is a woman, a teen woman, that you want to dismiss, diminish and devalue her work and who she is? I find the whole question of her "lack" of notability insulting to her as a person, to teens and to women everywhere. Her inclusion in Wikipedia should not even be a question. How many 13 year olds do YOU know that are capable or driven to create such work? She made a 13-year-old's movie. Take a look at Mozart's first pieces - they show his age. Emily's movie shows hers. And when we look at the quality of the work she has created, we HAVE to take into account that she is 13, no, 14 now, and judge her work on its merits, now, at this point in time, as well as what she is showing us she is capable of. You have to be freaking kidding......and yes, this is my first comment on Wikipedia ever, why is that relevant? That I am taking the time to make this comment in the first place should count for something?*sheesh* Fiona in St Paul— 75.161.255.95 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • First, they aren't my definitions of notability. They are the definitions of notability outlined under WP:N, WP:BLP and WP:FILM. Second, your suggestion that this has anything to do with her being a woman is baseless. I suggest you read up on WP:NPA before you make any further comments, you are in violation of it. Third, I have twice given my sole stipulation for changing my position and it has been ignored. Finally, if a lack of notability is a reason to be insulted, then 99.9% of the world should feel insulted and send equally unconstructive messages of outrage. There's nothing personal about this, I don't feel she meets notability requirements; and just because she very well may be notable one day, doesn't mean she is now. Trusilver 17:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While not everyone heeds the instructions (obviously), it is generally accepted that you should read the article and the entire AfD discussion before commenting to it. Had you done so, you would have found out two important facts. The first being that I said it's the IMDB.com biography that was written by a family member. The second fact is that Appraiser and Ispy1981 have provided evidence that enough information to deem the subject notable under WP:N will be forthcoming, even if it's not going to be during the life of this AfD discussion. Trusilver 04:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment And as for your question. I don't know the subject, I have no interest in the subject. Which is how it should be - I do not participate in AfD's in which I have any prior knowledge of the subject, to do so means that I'm not able to be completely objective. What you are mistaking for a "hell-bent" intent to get rid of this article is really a "hell-bent" intent to see that Wikipedia policy is properly applied. I don't know who it was, but I have no doubt at all that a Wikipedia editor solicited people at CONvergence to come here and oppose the deletion. I don't know or care who it was, but he knows who he is. I'm tremendously dissapointed that a Wikipedia editor is so willing to break the rules to push an AfD dispute into his/her favor. I am aware that you are new here and have no or very little understanding of our policies, but AfD discussions are not votes. An AfD discussion is an attempt to bring all parties to a consensus. The ability to do that is severely hampered when 8 of the 14 keep positions (counting my own) have been registered by either single-purpose accounts who are here ONLY to contest the deletion, or by users that have not made any contribution for extended periods of time and have come back only to contest the deletion. Personally, I think that this entire AfD should be erased and started from scratch (where I would say 'keep' again, incidentally) just for the reason that this entire thing has been corrupted beyond the ability to come to a coherent consensus. I don't particularly like being flamed by every person who has never participated in the project until 24 hours ago, but I will do it 100% of the time to insure that process is being followed. Trusilver 05:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I cannot comment on whether a Wikipedia editor solicited CONvergence members to oppose the deletion in violation of WP:CANVAS, in a strict sense. I was a 2007 CONvergence attendee and I did witness someone telling others to "go vote on Wikipedia", but I don't know if that person is a Wikipedia editor. And, by my reading of canvassing, it sure seems to lean heavily on matters of cross-posting and talk page editing, which doesn't exactly address the behavior which I witnessed, if that's Trusilver's concern. If the intent is to take WP:PI seriously and ensure the policy is properly applied, let me ask if there are pertinent rules which specifically address that kind of campaigning--unless the canvassing rules were intended to do so, in which case perhaps those can be made more specific.burnunit 02:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentCanvassing also covers the act of soliciting people outside of Wikipedia to come for the sole purpose of affecting the outcome of an AfD. (or any other consensus for that matter.) Trusilver 03:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm changing my mind on the above comment after a discussion on my talk page with Appraiser this morning. Under normal circumstances I would think that a situation like the warrants another AfD minus the dog and pony show. However, I feel that there never would have been an AfD had the article been as it is now when the nomination was first made. Trusilver 21:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep! In the book, Girls Make Media, Author Mary Celeste Kearney states that Emily is the first and youngest American teenage girl to make a feature length movie. I think that qualifies as notable. 12.106.2.2 13:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)MD[reply]

Cite it. If you need help, read WP:CITE Trusilver 17:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The book was added and cited by Emily's mother--Ispy1981 20:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Emily is extraordinary, not only as a teen but as a filmmaker and as a woman, and deserves recognition of that. Fiona in St Paul

Considering the enormous amount of truly useless trivia on Wikipedia, I find it astonishing that this article about a talented young filmmaker would be flagged for deletion. If you delete it now, someone is going to have to write a new one later, because this girl is destined to be really hugely successful. -Phoenixredux

COMMENT - I did read the entire discussion, and all I was saying was that the Wikipedia page wasn't written by a family member. Thanks for answering my questions Trusilver.


Comment on the whole deal It is my hope that whoever the closing admin is on this looks at the true discussion that has taken place and the consensus among editors who have been here longer than two seconds and not the spammy "Ohmigod, she's a teenager, just like me!" "Omigod, you guys are so sexist!" nature of some of the comments here. This is a discussion forum for the article and for its subject, based on policy and on the merits. If you can't discuss an article's merits without frivolous arguments, you don't belong here. IMDb has a whole sandbox for you to play in.--Ispy1981 20:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the Comment on the whole deal I agree wholeheartedly with Ispy1981. I feel that we have reached a consensus on this if you can dig down and block out the circus this has turned into. Trusilver 21:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for two reasons. First her accomplishments as a filmmaker at this age are out of the ordinary and have been recognized in a growing number of public arenas. Second on the basis of earlier comments in this debate indicating new evidence is forthcoming. I think if new sourcing is still pending, it behooves us to pause before moving forward with a delete. burnunit 02:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Being profiled and discussed in an independent publication (such as the above-mentioned book) is strong evidence of notability. Iceberg3k 12:06, 11 July 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.
More