Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elizabeth Eves

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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:54, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Eves

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:TOOSOON for this film producer as there is a lack of coverage directly about them in reliable sources and a likely conflict of interest as the creator has only edited connected articles Atlantic306 (talk) 14:57, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 15:29, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:52, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:52, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. So-called "producers" are a dime a dozen (any given feature film will often have over a dozen "producers" of various ranks/titles, some of whom only contributed cash), and this one's CV doesn't contain nearly enough feature films, or anything really notable. And as Atlantic306 stated, there is insufficient noteworthy coverage in reliable sources on this individual. SunChaser (talk) 00:49, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have to concur with the view that producers are often no more than movers of cash. Some are major figures in film, but they have lots of coverage, and so we keep articles. Others are major behind the scenes players, and maybe if all was known would merit articles. However since Wikipedia is based on verifiability, we cannot create articles on people with large impacts in an industry where there are not sources to show such a large impact existed. Although to be fair, I think Eves is most like the first category (a mover of cash) or maybe someone with some influence on artistic decisions, but not at a level to make her presently notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:39, 19 November 2017 (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.