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. Whilst it is confusing, WP:CREATIVE is an extension of, not a substitute for WP:N. If it meets the latter, the former is irrelevant. Fritzpoll (talk) 08:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Hagins[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Fail WP:Bio/WP:Creative Only one minor independent film to credit, without release. Minor appearance at convention. Only one project project foreshadowed, with no indication will ever be completed. Not evidence of cult following, or interest extending much beyond immediate family. Notability fails. Guidelines see WP:CREATIVE Rotovia (talk) 23:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete WP:CREATIVE fails Rotovia (talk) 00:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed that this doesn't pass WP:CREATIVE - Vartanza (talk) 05:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Keep - WP:CREATIVE is not relevant if the subject passes the general notability guidelines. The article already contains references to establish notability. And interest remains even after the initial coverage as evidenced in this Bloomberg article from January 2009. Aside from that, there is coverage in Dread Central, Atlanta Journal Constitution, Austin Chronicle, CITY News -- Whpq (talk) 16:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A minor independant film (not realesed) is not sufficiant notability, and comes under WP: Creative anyway Rotovia (talk) 00:43, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply - We do not judge notability directly ourselves. We establish it because others have made note of the subject. These articles are not passing mentions. They are specifically about Emily Hagins. The fact that she has done what she has done as such a young age has been noted by multiple reliable sources which are independent of the subject. That is exactly what wikipedia notability is all about. WP:CREATIVE does not supplant the general notability guidelines. -- Whpq (talk) 00:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the article is not about a film, but is about the filmmaker... who has the coverage per guidline to surpass both WP:GNG and the basic inclusion criteria od WP:BIO. WP:CREATIVE is subordinant to them both. Kudos to Whpq for some fine digging. Nuff said. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:CREATIVE is the applicable standard and even though this young person is probably a marvel amongst her family and friends, she is not notable in the sense that term is used here. --KenWalker | Talk 03:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Incorrect assertion. WP:CREATIVE is subordinant to applicable crtiteria of WP:GNG and the basic criteria of WP:BIO. You may as well be arguing that she does not pass WP:ATHLETE. That she meets WP:GNG is what gives here the pass, not a perceived failure of tertiary/subordinant guidelines. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Indeed. If one carefully reads WP:CREATIVE, one will note that it is a section from WP:BIO, which includes under the "Additional criteria" section (of which WP:CREATIVE is part of) the following very explicit statement: Should a person fail to meet these additional criteria, they may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability. which is exactly the situation here. -- Whpq (talk) 19:53, 4 June 2009 (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.