Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elizabeth Klinck

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 no consensus. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:59, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Klinck

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

Non-notable producer. Winged Blades^Godric 10:33, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Winged Blades^Godric 10:34, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. The creator of the article seems to be a COI editor (see my comments on the talk page) and this article reads like a resume. Her awards are very industry-specific and it is unlikely that over and above the routine coverage of her wins there is much in-depth coverage to satisfy GNG, I couldn't find any. Domdeparis (talk) 10:40, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have to respectfully disagree with Winged Blades of Godricl and Domdeparis. The subject being written about is an important member of the documentary film community both in Canada and internationally. She has been nominated and won several awards both in Canada and abroad for visual research. Her work is of such high quality that she was asked by documentarian Werner Herzog to work on his recent documentary Into the Inferno. For these two editors to dismiss her awards as being industry specific is to overlook the importance of the Canadian film industry. Visual research is an integral part of historical documentary filmmaking just as cinematography is to feature film. The article has been edited to not read like a resume but to present the facts supported by multiple sources. I ask that both Winged Blades and Domdeparis redact their request that this page be deleted based on their belief that Elizabeth is insignificant. Or, if they are unwilling to do that, explain in greater detail why they do not believe she is worthy of mention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackjohnnmartin (talk • contribs) 17:46, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:49, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:49, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Jackjohnnmartin: I may be wrong and of course I am not outing you but if the fact that your user name is the same as her husband's is just a coincidence it might be useful to state that here but if it isn't I do understand why you are defending your article and that you feel personally slighted by the nomination. it is very difficult to have a Neutral point of view when there is a conflict of interest but please don't take this nomination so personally. Just as a reminder conflict of interests should be accompanied by a disclosure on associated talk pages --Domdeparis (talk) 09:36, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, I see she's won a Gemini Award, among others, which was Canada's highest TV honour. We was the subject of this profile in the Canadian documentary journal, POV. But that looks to be an affiliated reference. But POV also reported separately that she received a lifetime achievement award from FOCAL_International#FOCAL_International_Awards. Hot Docs, which has no affiliation with her, did an interview with her for their industry series. I think we may have a visual researcher who genuinely meets WP:CREATIVE criterion #1. The lifetime achievement award from UK-based FOCAL seems like a really big deal. keep. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:01, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, and there's also this interview with her in Archival Storytelling: A Filmmaker's Guide to Finding, Using, and Licensing Third-Party Visuals and Music, which you can read in Gbooks. (The book ref also verifies that she was an Emmy nominee). The nomination statement errs in calling her a "producer." She is not. But she seems to be eminently notable in her field. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:08, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Kommentar Just for info she is a member of the board of directors of FOCAL international and the award may be a big deal but giving awards to your board of directors is not very independent. The subject has worked for Hotdocs in the past by giving workshops, here. That said when you work in a very specialised field you start to have connections to all the different institutions and publications after a while. Domdeparis (talk) 09:18, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - I didn't notice the prior affiliation with FOCAL, you're quite right. But I see she's won three Gemini/Canadian Screen Awards (the Geminis became the CSAs) which are Canada's highest screen honours. There's also the News & Documentary Emmy Award nom for HBO's Middle Sexes. Despite the very valid points you've raised, I still believe she's a notable visual researcher per CREATIVE. COI is always a concern, but when we've a notable topic I tend to come down on the side of clean up if necessary, add a connected contributor template to the article talk page, but preserve. And I for one think that's what we have here. Of course, others are coming down elsewhere, I get that. (I also see we don't even have a category, Category:Visual researchers, fwiw.) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:52, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:02, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure that a visual researcher is considered as a CREATIVE, it is more of a documentalist. According to the Visual Researchers Society of Canada here

"Q: What exactly does a visual researcher do?

A: A researcher wears several hats and you can hire them for one aspect of your project, or for all of it. They do visual research—looking for footage and stills in a very wide range of sources using an extensive network of contacts. They can also manage the archive/asset as it comes in, logging it and tracking it in the post-production phase so regular costings and copyright assessments can be done. They can also handle financial negotiations with suppliers, using their preferred rates and their own negotiating skills to get the best possible rate for the material and use your money in the most efficient way. Finally they can handle all of the license agreement negotiations to ensure that you have all the protections you need in place and provide a complete package of deliverables at the end."

Unless I'm very much mistaken we are not really in the domain of the creative process this is more of a technical/administrative role. It is fair to say that the Canadian screen Awards are the equivalent to the British Academy Television Awards (and not the BAFTA as such) but there are no awards for researchers and in the Emmys there is a single category for research in the News and Documentary awards. The visual research award seems to be a very specific Canadian award that doesn't have a parallel in other award ceremonies. So to be perfectly honest it's not surprising that there isn't a Category:Visual researchers. Domdeparis (talk) 17:55, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 21:30, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Winning a Gemini and other awards and being nominated for an Emmy satisfies WP:ANYBIO #1, and she's received a surprising amount of notice.[1][2][3][4] Clarityfiend (talk) 01:26, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A Gemini and two Canadian Screen Awards is enough to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 02:26, 2 March 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.