Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jay Russell

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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 09:39, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Russell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Apparently non-notable director. A WP:BEFORE search hasn't turned up any significant coverage, nor does any of the existing references. Further, they don't appear to meet the requirements of WP:Director; they appear to come close to #3, but as far as I can tell they don't meet the second condition of it. BilledMammal (talk) 00:18, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 00:18, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 00:18, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:24, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per criteria 3 of WP:CREATIVE and WP:SIGCOV. Director of several notable films which have been widely reviewed in multiple independent RS; including Variety, Billboard, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times, The Guardian, and The Chicago Tribune among many others. Clearly a competent WP:BEFORE search was not done. See below for a small sampling of quality RS. I didn't even bother to check google books, but I would bet there is a considerable amount of RS to be found there is well.4meter4 (talk) 03:48, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "OUTTAKES: THE SEQUEL RAILROAD TIES". Los Angeles Times. 24 August 1986. p. M36.
• Maslin, Janet (26 February 1988). "Film: Wilford Brimley Stars in 'End of the Line'". The New York Times. p. C15.
• Rich (February 24, 1988). "Film review: End Of The Line". Variety. 330 (5): 12.
• Barbara McIntosh (3 April 1988). "Stony Reception In Little Rock: Film by Mary Steenburgen Draws Cries of Foul in Arkansas 'End of the Line'". The Washington Post. p. G1.
• Smith, Sid (21 August 1988). "Video: A small film brings home fine acting". Chicago Tribune. p. M20.
• Koehler, Robert (January 10, 2000). "Film Reviews: 'SKIP'S' LYRICAL TRIP DOWN MEMORY LANE". Variety. 377 (8): 109, 113.
• Kerrigan, Mike (Jan 1, 2000). "REVIEWS: MY DOG SKIP". Boxoffice. 136: 62.
• Kehr, Dave (11 October 2002). "FILM REVIEW: You Only Live Once, But You Can Make It Last". The New York Times. p. E20.
• Scott, A O. (12 Jan 2000). "FILM REVIEW: Fetch, Boy! Fetch the Wisdom of the Ages! Good Boy! MY DOG SKIP Fetch, Boy! Fetch the Wisdom of the Ages! Good Boy!". The New York Times. p. E1.
• Rehak, Melanie (6 October 2002). "FILM: Falling for a Children's Tale of an Age-Old Wish". The New York Times. p. A15.
• Lyman, Rick (21 January 2000). "AT THE MOVIES: In the Running For an Oscar A Clearer 'Window' Favorite Foreign Films Tale of a Dog". The New York Times. p. E22.
• French, Philip (13 August 2000). "Pet storks, pet dogs and a turkey: OTHER FILMS". The Observer. p. D9.
• "Charts: WINNERS Top 10 UK films". The Guardian. 25 October 2002. p. B31.
• Manohla Dargis (1 October 2004). "With Many a Fear and Tear, Firefighters Prove Their Mettle". The New York Times. p. E12.

• To lead; I haven't checked all of those sources, as the absence of links, despite links being readily available for at least some of them (for example: [1][2][3][4]) makes it an extended process that I am not currently willing to go through. However, as best I can tell, these all constitute significant coverage (WP:SIGCOV) of films that Russell has directed. If this is incorrect, please let me know.

Now, WP:CREATIVE#3 requires directors to have directed works that are considered "significant or well known". Note that in the context of the notability of people, "significant" is a higher standard than "notable"; a film or award can be notable without being significant. As such, establishing that the individual has created notable works, as I believe you have done, is not sufficient, and thus I don't believe that CREATIVE#3 has been met. BilledMammal (talk) 05:08, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BilledMammal You are obviously new to AFD. Criteria 3 states, "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. 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 (emphasis on the "or") of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews; ". In order to establish notability for directors, we merely have demonstrate that their works (i.e. the films they have directed) have been the subject of multiple published independent reviews (because of the important word "or"). Basically, just three of the reviews above are enough to establish criteria #3 of WP:CREATIVE. We have way more evidence than that. Further, I think the fact that his films received multiple independent reviews in both national and international press and were made with several major film studios, some of them grossing over 100 million dollars, clearly establishes that his works are well known. One does not get reviewed in The New York Times, Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, etc. without becoming well known. His works have been reviewed by major critics like Siskel and Ebert, [5], [6], (on TV no less). You aren't going to find anyone willing to go along with your line of reasoning. This was a poorly thought through nomination.4meter4 (talk) 05:30, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, just three of the reviews above are enough to establish criteria #3 of WP:CREATIVE

I think we've got a disagreement over which section the "or" applies to. In my opinion, it doesn't extend over the period; they have to meet both the second sentence and the first. Think about it; if someone asks you to go down to the shop saying "Please get me some bread. In addition, please get me some cheese or some ham" - would you just get them ham and think you have satisfied their request?

clearly establishes that his works are well known

I'm not sure I agree with that; "well known" is defined as "known or recognized by many people", and I don't believe contemporary reviews or decent box office receipts are sufficient to demonstrate that. I believe we would need evidence of broad and extended impact, evidence that we don't have. BilledMammal (talk) 06:18, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think your interpretation of this policy is both novel and atypical of the historical interpretation of WP:CREATIVE at AFD; but we'll see what others have to say.4meter4 (talk) 06:33, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per 4meter4's comprehensive list, although I'd argue it's barely even necessary in this case, since having directed two individual movies with a >100M USD gross effectively settles the question for notability right there and then; of course people are going to write about those enough to satisfy NACTOR NDIRECTOR. If we were to decide to throw this guy out, we might have to introduce an additional CSD rule just to deal with all the other articles on creative professionals that would suddenly become equally ripe for the chop. AngryHarpy‍^talk 07:22, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I fully agree that 4meter4 has demonstrated that Jay Russell has directed multiple notable films. However, I think you are a little mistaken on which policy applies; one might easily think that actors sit under WP:CREATIVE, but they actually sit under WP:ENTERTAINER (which is where WP:NACTOR links). The requirements of ENTERTAINER are considerably less stringent than CREATIVE, requiring just that an actor has held a significant role in two notable films. For the CREATIVE, however, it isn't sufficient to have directed one or even a hundred notable films (though if they had directed a hundred such films, it would be easy to prove they meet GNG); it requires them to have directed a "significant or well known" film. BilledMammal (talk) 07:41, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, guess I shouldn't have typed this out immediately after waking up; I've struck and corrected to NDIRECTOR, which is the shortcut my sleepy brain was actually shooting for. Nevertheless:...such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (...) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews – it has been demonstrated that option B is effortlessly passed. AngryHarpy‍^talk 08:15, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All good; fair enough. It seems you are of the same opinion as 4meter4 as to how the "or" splits that paragraph, but to me it doesn't seem logical to split it like that. I've crossed out the portion of the paragraph that becomes irrelevant when we assume "of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" is true, with the first representing 4meter4's understanding of reach of the "or" statement, and the second representing mine.

1. The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. 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; or
2. The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. 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; or

To me, the first sentence doesn't make any sense, though perhaps I have misunderstood their understanding of the reach?BilledMammal (talk) 08:36, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're all on the same page about the second option being the correct one, but even so, what's really the issue?a significant or well-known work or collective body of work makes for some highly subjective qualifiers, I've certainly never seen any of his films, but The Water Horse: Legend of the Deep alone is sitting at 12k monthly views as of right now, fourteen years after coming out – as far as I'm concerned, that's entirely sufficient to label it as "well-known". AngryHarpy‍^talk 08:47, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying; it seems I misinterpreted your position on this matter being the same as theirs, and I'm glad I can now understand the point you are making. However, I'm not sure I agree with it; while it is a decent number, extrapolating out from the top 1000 film articles by page views per month, I would put it at approximately the 35,000 most viewed film article (just outside the top 10%) and in my opinion we would be applying the classifier of "well known" too broadly if we accepted it as so on the basis of that. BilledMammal (talk) 09:24, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's still a little time for other people to chime in, but I think you'll find that the general reading of these rules isn't quite as, say, technocratic. I mean, we have an article on Keoni Waxman, whose main claim to fame is having directed a disturbing number of late-career Steven Seagall vehicles, one a bigger flop than the next one, and here's a YouTube video about the film I mentioned above, published in May 2021 and sitting at 2.5M views, seemingly considerably above that channel's average. I'm aware that I'm deep into WP:ATA-territory here, but the policy-based argument has been made and, to me, is airtight. Also, your observation above doesn't take the film's age into account, as new releases will naturally attract higher numbers and we don't have data from 2007 available, but that's mostly on me for highlighting the figure in the first place. AngryHarpy‍^talk 09:37, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:NDIRECTOR per AngryHarpy and 4Meter4 ~ Shushugah (he/him • talk) 15:26, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, easily meets WP:NDIRECTOR. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:36, 14 September 2021 (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.