Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cassie Jaye

:{{la|Cassie Jaye}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cassie_Jaye Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Cassie Jaye}})

Sources do not indicate this person meets WP:NBIO. Sources overwhelmingly focus on The Red Pill with relatively little coverage of Jaye herself, and no separate claims to notability.

This was a redirect to The Red Pill, but has been repeatedly restored without clear explanation. Grayfell (talk) 23:30, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: I have filed a request for arbitration enforcement against {{User|Stormwatch}}, the user who has repeatedly restored this article. That request is available at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Stormwatch. --Yamla (talk) 23:50, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
• Redirect to The Red Pill & protect the redirect. The subject is not independently notable, and a separate article is not yet needed. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:35, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 17:10, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 17:10, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 17:10, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

• Keep. Articles about her and her work in NYT, Guardian, Evening Standard are referenced here and it's easy to find many more in e.g. Sydney Herald, The Australian, The New Daily, etc. What kind of reasoning is a separate article is not yet needed? A person is notable if they've done notable work and that notability is obvious from the many articles in mainstream sources that discuss her and her work. Agricola44 (talk) 03:08, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
• Redirect I don't see any individual notability for the director, only for their film. We don't have any policy that mandates articles for everyone who worked on something noteworthy (very few articles for people who work as best boys.) PeterTheFourth (talk) 06:08, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

::The analogy you're making is, for example, that a lab technician is not notable because of important discoveries and I agree. That is because that lab technician is not the "responsible party". But, the lab head/principal investigator is notable for these important discoveries. That is the crux of PROF #1. For this case, the relevant criterion is ARTIST #3: The person has...played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work.... Now, unless you're claiming that (1) Jaye did not play a major role in producing The Red Pill and (2) The Red Pill is itself not significant, you have not really made a convincing case for a redirect. You already concede (2) in saying that the film is actually notable. So, do you stick by (1), i.e. that she did not play an important role in producing this film? K.e.coffman's reasoning seems to be the same as yours... Agricola44 (talk) 13:44, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

:::You seem to be referring to some guideline or policy when you say 'PROF #1' and 'ARTIST #3'. Could you link those please? PeterTheFourth (talk) 19:28, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

::::Yes, they are official guidelines for assessing notability. Here is WP:PROF, though I only mentioned this as an example. The relevant one here is WP:DIRECTOR...Jaye quite obviously meets criterion #3, since there are many mainstream sources (named above) that specifically discuss her and her film. Best, Agricola44 (talk) 22:34, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

:::::For Wikipedia:Notability (academics)#Criteria: If Jaye is a researcher who's work has influenced a discipline, what discipline? How, according to academic sources, has her research made a difference? This would still need reliable sources about that work, but we only have sources about the single movie she's made, and none of those sources discuss any sort of significant lasting impact on an academic field, nor is this likely for a relatively recently released film.

:::::For Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Creative professionals, that's more plausible, but the sources for The Red Pill do not suggest any sort of lasting legacy for the film either. There are no movies about the movie, nor any books or TV series. Is The Red Pill "significant"? Right now the film's article does a poor job of explaining that. It's mostly routine tabloid reviews, outrage culture op-eds, and news articles about the funding history and difficulty with screenings. The periodical reviews included are short and routine. There is very little indication of enduring coverage now that the film is out of theaters.

:::::There has to be something more substantial than this. The important encyclopedic information about her can be placed on the film's article. The project isn't improved by poorly-sourced stubs for every single directer of every film. Grayfell (talk) 22:36, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

::::::Well, like I said, PROF was only mentioned as an example. DIRECTOR is the relevant guideline: her work is "important" in the sense that there is lots of coverage in mainstream sources (NYT, Sydney Herald, et al.), which satisfies criterion 3. There's no need for "movies about the movie" or any of the other imaginary hurdles you mentioned. The article may be poorly written, but that is not what is being adjudicated here. We are only assessing notability and the many sources demonstrate she passes. Thx, Agricola44 (talk) 22:45, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

:::::::Per WP:DIRECTOR: {{tq|...In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.}} There's nothing imaginary about this, and if you're going to cite a guideline, you should cite the entire guideline. Grayfell (talk) 23:12, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

::::::::Another case where we're going to get down into the semantic mud, I suppose. This work has been the subject of many independent pieces in first-tier, mainstream sources, like NYT, Sydney Herald, etc...I count close to a dozen. So, I guess you're arguing that because the coverage isn't a movie about this movie, or a book about this movie, or a TV series about this movie, that her work is not notable, and by extension she is not notable. So, lots of coverage in NYT et al., but somehow that doesn't count. Do I have it? Agricola44 (talk) 04:59, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

:::::::::"Somehow"? Obviously you don't have it. "Independent and notable work" is somewhat subjective, but none of these works about the Red Pill are notable. :Category:Documentary films about films and :Category:Books about films are notable works about films that presumably meet this threhsold. I don't think a bog-standard collection of movie reviews is enough, otherwise what is the point? I suppose there's room for disagreement regarding where this line lies, but as I said, I don't see how this article helps the project when the reliable sources of substance about Jaye are about The Red Pill doc, and all information can easily be placed there.

:::::::::As for the first NYT article, it's a single paragraph, internet-only blurb paraphrasing the Guardian article already cited. The prestige of the outlet should not be overstated in this case, and its use in the lede looks like WP:BOMBARDMENT. The second NYT one is more significant, but it's five paragraphs which says nothing about Jaye other than using her name as a shorthand way to critique the film.

:::::::::As an aside, if the article survives, that film (The Right to Love: An American Family) should be added to the article. Grayfell (talk) 20:56, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

::::::::::My points are (1) that an artist is notable if her work is notable and (2) there are tons of top-tier sources that demonstrate such. We evidently disagree on point (1). Closing admin will adjudicate. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 06:23, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

• Keep Agricola44 makes a compelling argument. As per WP:DIRECTOR she clearly meets point 3, she created the Red Pill and it is a significant work which is world wide being watched by people from Australia, Europe and North America to name just some of the places where people have attack it and tried to censure its content. It's been reported by news shows, newspapers and such like so clearly meets the additional requirement that such work must have been the primary subject of "...multiple independent periodical articles". Point 3 also ends with "...or reviews" so being the primary subject in reviews is enough to meet this point as well. ThinkingTwice ^{contribs | talk} 13:15, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
• Keep. The subject meets point 3 of WP:DIRECTOR. I also contend that the article should be kept based on the valid points raised above by Agricola44 and ThinkingTwice. Bob from the Beltway (talk) 19:54, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
• Keep. per Agricola44's reasoning. Aleccat 23:13, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
• Delete or Redirect - not independently notable per proposer. Volunteer Marek  03:36, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
• Redirect to The Red Pill - Director is not independently noteworthy aside from the film. Much of the biographical content is unsourced, which would not be the case if she warranted her own article. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:03, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

:In response to those who feel this meets WP:DIRECTOR, condition #3 specifically says that the director's film output must be significant. There are only 6 reviews on Rotten Tomatoes for The Red Pill. https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_red_pill_2016/ This along with the sourcing shows the film exists, and has attracted attention for being controversial, but is really not significant. It might not even pass a deletion review of its own. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:36, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

• Delete. Definately 100% does not meet WP:BIO WP:ACTOR, not notable stubs like this have no place here.NikolaiHo^☎️ 04:30, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

• Keep - Although most of the coverage is about one of her films, that isn't the only thing she has gotten in the media for. See this, for example: [http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/1073307]. And besides, considering the significant coverage that she has garnered, she seems to be notable anyways, as we have a large amount of coverage in reliable sources. Thus, the article should be kept and not deleted or redirected. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 12:41, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
• Keep Jaye is arguably one of the most notable figures in the manosphere. Numerous protologisms and neoligisms can be traced to her if following the etymology. Furthermore, a redirect is not logical since the subject of the redirect was llargely about herself, making it somewhat of an autobiography, hence nodding towards notability. In a nutshell, Jaye is notable outside her profession. 92.13.131.144 (talk) 18:35, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
• Keep Everyone who is talking about WP:ACTOR, WP:DIRECTOR, etc are missing the point here. The criteria for biographical articles comes down to the same criteria as all other articles, from WP:BASIC: {{tq|People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject}}. As part of the AfD discussion template, there are links to sources like Google News and Google Scholar and Google Books. Taking a look at this results [https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Cassie+Jaye%22&tbm=nws News] - 1550, [https://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks:1&q=%22Cassie+Jaye%22 Books]: 600+ (although I'm sure many of these are false positives you can see pretty clearly from the previews that she's discussed in multiple books, [https://cse.google.com/cse?hl=en&cx=007734830908295939403:galkqgoksq0&cof=FORID:13%3BAH:left%3BCX:Wikipedia%2520Reference%2520Search&q=%22Cassie+Jaye%22#gsc.tab=0&gsc.q=%22Cassie%20Jaye%22&gsc.page=1 Custom Search] 15,000+... It's true that this article isn't currently making adequate use of the WP:RS that covers her, and that's problem. But in terms of the WP:BASIC there's no question. - Scarpy (talk) 20:43, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable. One film and it's a direct-sale WP:FRINGE movement film. Morty C-137 (talk) 21:30, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:GNG. Hmlarson (talk) 01:31, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.