Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kerstin Emhoff

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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. Some of the discussion goes a bit off the tracks, but there is pretty solid consensus that she meets the guidelines. Mojo Hand (talk) 20:07, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kerstin Emhoff

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Kerstin Emhoff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTINHERITED from her exhusband or her exhusband's second wife. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:05, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Minor edits were made for clarification. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:33, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:05, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:05, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:11, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. No reasoned analysis for deletion. A documentary producer with an extensive resume of productions. Her most production, "AKA Jane Roe" was widely and internationally reviewed. The nom's implicit argument, that a woman whose ex-spouse is notable should be presumed non-notable and there is no need to evaluate her work, is just an embarrassment to Wikipedia. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 02:07, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:GNG is the reason. What sources mention her in significant depth per GNG? – Muboshgu (talk) 02:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Don't be disingenuous, Muboshgu. You altered your nomination statement to address my objections (not very convincingly), and to make it look like I had ignored your statement. That's simply unacceptable behavior, as a user of more than 15 years experience well knows, no less an admin. And you've plainly done jack spit to comply with WP:BEFORE. Emhoff's most recent production, "aka Jane Roe," has been widely covered nationally and internationally, including four pieces (two news, two editorial) in the NYTimes alone. Other work has won, inter alia, a national Emmy award. A creative professional is notable principally for creating significant work, and you've done exactly nothing to assess the significance of Emhoff's work. Exactly nothing. And there's certainly a flurry of coverage of Emhoff this week, saying things like "Kerstin Emhoff co-founded a produciton company that works to elevate a diversity of voices. Prettybird, houses directors that are making bold statements and produces progressive content that helps move conversations forward. She also founded a non-profit called Pipelines which is a "mobile discovery app and Foundation" that aims to help people from underrepresented communities break through social barriers to success." [1]
And, again, you've done jack spit to evaluate this or any coverage. All you've done is say "This woman's ex-spouse is notable, so I'm going to assume she only "inherits" notability through him, and even though her work has much more recognition than his, and looks to be more significant, I'm going to dismiss it out of hand." That's not the attitude I'd associate with someone here to build an encyclopedia. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 04:26, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't change the intent of what was said. All I did was add to the explanation of "Not notable", by which I meant doesn't pass GNG, and mention more specifically who she'd inherit notability from. I should have declared those changes though and have now done so. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:33, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 13:04, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 16:58, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There seems to be a widespread misunderstanding that
    WP:NOTINHERITED means that being related to a famous person precludes individual notability. pburka (talk) 17:12, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    WP:NOTINHERITED is a factor. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:55, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The page may have been created because of her recent proximity to fame, but that's irrelevant to notability. The very first version of the article included the fact that she's an award winning filmmaker: that wasn't addressed in either the original or revised deletion rationale. Recently there have been several AFDs for relatives of famous people with equally vague rationales, e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Odessa Grady Clay (3rd nomination). pburka (talk) 18:07, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The ties to AUTHOR#3 or CREATIVE#1 seem really weak to me. It is unclear what she has actually done on those projects where she got a producer credit. Getting a producer credit isn't an NFILM criretia. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:10, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Don't feel bad. It appears that every individual connected to Kamala – even tangentially – is automatically notable now that she might be VP. Her mailman is getting an article soon, along with her first boyfriend and personal physician.
talk) 17:59, 14 August 2020 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kerstin_Emhoff&oldid=974918091"