This is an old revision of this page, as edited by J04n(talk | contribs) at 19:24, 22 May 2013(Closing debate, result was delete). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 19:24, 22 May 2013 by J04n(talk | contribs)(Closing debate, result was delete)
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.
Keep article. By deleting, we would promote criteria, based on which countless articles should be deleted. In my view, the article meets the criteria for what is generally accepted as notable in Wikipedia. The newly-established article has now been cropped and can be cropped and/or improved further, for it to more precisely focus on key matters, such as:
1.Edna Jeffrey was for decades the co-owner of the famous Finnila's Finnish Baths on San Francisco'sMarket Street. Finnila's was a popular and important element in the history of San Francisco's Castro District.[1][2][3] Edna Jeffrey is also co-owner of the Noe & Market Center on San Francisco's Market Street, and she was a long-time co-owner of a part of the property of Cafe Flore in San Francisco. Both Cafe Flore and Finnila's Finnish Baths have been San Francisco's popular "landmark"[4] type businesses for long, Finnila's operating in San Francisco's Castro District alone for over seven decades, and continuing thereafter on Taraval Street.
Among recognition, the two businesses have been granted the "The Best" award by San Francisco Bay Guardian in total at least eight times. Still shortly before closing its popular Market Street location in San Francisco in the 1980s, Finnila's Finnish Baths - owned by Edna Jeffrey and his brother Alfred Finnila - was awarded with the title "The Best" two times in row by the popular bi-weekly and free San Francisco Bay Area entertainment magazine San Francisco Bay Guardian. According to the paper, Finnila's was "The Best Sauna and Massage Parlor" in the San Francisco Bay Area in 1983 and 1984. [5]
In response to Rubert ABC, I will not express an opinion about the notability of the businesses, but I will say that notability is not inherited. The owner of a notable business is not automatically notable, even if the business won a couple of local awards. As for the novel and the screenplay, I can find no coverage whatsoever of either in independent, reliable sources. I see discussion on a website controlled by the screenwriter, but that doesn't count, as it isn't independent. The third source, a church website, doesn't even mention her. Your statement that countless other Wikipedia articles ought to be deleted is no doubt true, and we delete many articles about non-notable topics from Wikipedia every day. The existence of such articles is no defense for this article, because the purpose of this debate is to make a decision about this article alone. So I ask you, where is the significant coverage of Edna Jeffrey in independent, reliable sources? I just don't see it so far, and without it, the article will almost certainly be deleted. Cullen328Let's discuss it23:51, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know what "discussion on a website controlled by the screenwriter" you are referring to. I believe definitions about "independent" vary in these type of contexts. How do you define "independent" in your question? All websites are produced by an individual or a group of people. Do you mean to imply that the website used as a source in the Edna Jeffrey article is controlled by the screenwriter? No such indication can be detected. Thus, can we agree that the website is independent? In my view, the source is fine for what it is used for. However, I believe the church source is a relic from the section which discussed Little Scandinavia and how a lot of Finns came to rebuilt San Francisco after the 1906 earthquake. That section was removed. For me that link did not even work right now - so, I could not check what exactly is stated there. -- Rubert ABC (talk) 09:10, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the point made above, that notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Therefore it doesn't matter how notable the business may have been--the notability does not extend to the subject of this article. Qworty (talk) 11:36, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article - the Edna Jeffrey novel and movie production links on this page did not show up until now, due to misspelling. An Amazon book link was added here also.[7] Although the novel was written for motion picture purposes and it therefore was published in limited print and with not big marketing process, it presents a remarkable story which has created interest in Hollywood experts. A movie screenplay from the novel has been produced by a notable[9] Hollywood screenwriter, and a movie planning is far in works.[10]Edna Jeffrey did not only inherit Finnila's Finnish Baths. Eager to help, she began assisting at the front counter of Finnila's when she was only five years old, greatly contributing to the success of the bathhouse throughout her adolescence, and later on as the co-owner for decades of both the bathhouse and the Noe & Market Center complex, which was built in place of the old bathhouse. Edna Jeffrey remains a majority owner of the new building today. [6] -- Rubert ABC (talk) 14:20, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I second the motion by Viriditas, unless others will already agree to accept enough notability having been established on the above given grounds. -- Rubert ABC (talk) 14:20, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
References
^San Francisco Examiner. May 27, 1982. No. 147, p. 2. Golden Gate Bridge - 45th anniversary of completion.
Response to Rubert ABC You ask what I mean by "a website controlled by the screenwriter". I am referring to the current references #1 and #4 in the article. This website is indisputably controlled by the screenwriter. If the movie is made and does well, the screenwriter and the author will benefit financially. Accordingly, these two references are not independent and are utterly useless to establish notability, as Wikipedia defines that term. Reference #2 is the Amazon.com web page for the book. Amazons makes money selling books, and sales listings are by definition not independent and are worthless for establishing notability. Reference #3 is a dead link, and even when live, was not independent. Reference #5, as already pointed out, is a church website that does not mention her. It is completely worthless. Reference #6 is a Bay Guardian article published in 1984. Although offline sources are allowed, this one is pretty much unverifiable. It lacks article title, author, date or any indication of the content of the article. It is dubious, given the utter lack of online independent sources giving significant coverage to Edna Jeffrey. Reference #7 is an author website that doesn't mention Jeffrey or her business ventures at all. Reference #8 is a Finiish Google Books link that shows that a novel was published by another author that mentions a business that Jeffrey co-owned, but does not mention her. In summary, after this lengthy debate, not a single solitary reliable, independent source has been produced by Rubert ABC, or any other editor recommending "Keep", that gives significant coverage to Edna Jeffrey. Feel free to prove me wrong. Cullen328Let's discuss it04:56, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article. Response to Cullen 328: You suggest that the website used as a reference might be "controlled" by the screenwriter. With no proof or indication of such control, this is not a valid reason for deletion of the article.
Proof of contrary: Out of billions of Google picture search results for the term "film entertainment", a majority (4/7) of the first row of results connect to websites of the publisher used as a reference in the Edna Jeffrey article (checking the search term without quote signs, 30% of the first three rows of pictures connect to that publisher). Furthermore, a search engine check shows that although that entertainment network reports about Edna Jeffrey's novel and the screenplay by Thom Racina and the movie under works, no indication of the network being in any way "controlled" by Mr. Racina can be detected. Racina appears to be no affiliate or partner of the network.
Using an issue of San Francisco Bay Guardian as a reference for "The Best" awards granted by the paper is appropriate, and the year and the number of the issue discussing "The Best" awards in question have been provided.[1] Also, a picture of the 1984 "The Best" award granted to Finnila's by Bay Guardian was added in references.[2] The Amazon.com link was not intended for showing of notability, but simply for additional verification of the novel having been authored by Edna Jeffrey.[3] The broken link to the screenwriter biography was fixed.[4] As material was deleted from the article, the church link had become poorly placed. That was fixed. The source info for Edna Jeffrey's book (incl. ISBN No.) was included as a reference.[5] -- Rubert ABC (talk) 17:35, 7 May 2013 (UTC) Struck duplicate !vote. Dricherby (talk) 09:06, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. The only reliable source in the whole article is the San Francisco Bay Guardian, and that is only used to support WP:COATRACKing of the awards that newspaper gave to Finnila's Bathhouse. There's no link to an online version but, from the way that source is used, I assume that it gives no significant coverage (probably none at all) to Jeffrey. In any case, notability is not inherited by the owner of a possibly notable business. I was unable to find any reliable sources at all for Edna Jeffrey, her book or the movie that's allegedly being made of it so the subject seems to fail WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. The article doesn't claim she's notable in any other way, so I don't see any other notability criteria that could be applied. Her book completely fails WP:BK – I couldn't find a single review – and the movie is WP:CRYSTAL. I doubt it will ever be made, since the biography of the screenwriter cited in the article [1] mentions nothing after 2005 and the domain movieforbidden.com (also cited in the article) was registered in 2009, suggesting that this material is several years old and going nowhere. I see no reason at WP:REDIRECT to have a redirect and I disagree with a redirect since, if anyone is interested in Jeffrey, it is more likely to be because of her novel and/or the movie, than because of curiosity about a business that closed in 2000. Dricherby (talk) 09:56, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To further flog the WP:NOTINHERITED horse, I note that Jeffrey wasn't even mentioned in Finnila's Finnish Baths (created by the same editor as this article) until her absence from that article was mentioned in this AfD. Even now, she only has a trivial mention as being a co-owner of the business. Dricherby (talk) 10:02, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Notable enough. Although the particular Thom Racina biography used[4] as a reference in the Edna Jeffrey article does not reveal Racina's latest works, he has continued contributing as a significant Hollywood screenwriter up to date, e.g. as the head writer for One Life to Live (5/2013) and writer of 12 episodes[6] of The Young and the Restless ("writer"/"written by").[7] It is not true that "Jeffrey wasn't even mentioned in Finnila's Finnish Baths" article "until her absence from that article was mentioned in this AfD." For proof, see for instance this version of the Finnila's article. -- Rubert ABC (talk) 18:45, 14 May 2013 (UTC) Unbolded "notable enough", to make sure it is not confused for a duplicate keep !vote. Dricherby (talk) 19:33, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry and thank you for the correction: I see that Jeffrey's name was subsequently removed from that article so I've struck my comment about her absence. However, your comments about Thom Racina make my other point stronger. The material related to the film "Forbidden" has clearly not been updated in several years, since it doesn't mention any of the things you point out that Racina has done in the last eight years. This suggests quite strongly that the film project has been abandoned. Also, although he's a very successful writer of TV soaps, IMDB shows that Racina has never been credited as a movie screenwriter and his own website [2] doesn't mention any movie work that I can see. So we're left with an apparently-abandoned screenplay by somebody who's never had a screenplay turned into an actual movie: that doesn't confer notability. Dricherby (talk) 19:57, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the Internet's "who is" records, the movie domain name in question was registered as recently as August 28, 2009. The website in question - under that domain/address - can only have been launched after August 28, 2009. Typically - these days -, from the time of the registration of a movie domain, the actual finishing of the movie production takes several years. What comes to the Thom Racina biography provided on that website, clearly not all available information about him has been presented. Accordingly, in the Edna Jeffrey Wikipedia article, other Thom Racina biographies and/or other related information can be added. -- Rubert ABC (talk) 19:01, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I already said that the movieforbidden.com domain was registered in 2009; the content, however, is at bravesites.com and may have been there before 2009: the fact that the bios don't mention anything after 2005 suggests that they were. I'm not saying that the Thom Racina information can't be used as sources for things in the article (though they're sef-published so not reliable for much other than information about Racina himself). I'm saying that they don't establish notability of Edna Jeffrey, which is what we're debating here. Dricherby (talk) 20:31, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You state above that the information used as a reference "may have been there before 2009". However, if that website or the domain name would have been published before August 28, 2009, some information about this would be available through search engines. Would you kindly please provide such information. If not, your theory is based on speculation which mounts to no proof of any inappropriate use of a source. With "sef-published" you must mean self-published. However, self-published by who? The source is an appropriately used independent source. As I've stated above (quoting my earlier statement):
"Out of billions of Google picture search results for the term "film entertainment", a majority (4/7) of the first row of results connect to websites of the publisher used as a reference in the Edna Jeffrey article (checking the search term without quote signs, 30% of the first three rows of pictures connect to that publisher). Furthermore, a search engine check shows that although that entertainment network reports about Edna Jeffrey's novel and the screenplay by Thom Racina and the movie under works, no indication of the network being in any way "controlled" by Mr. Racina can be detected. Racina appears to be no affiliate or partner of the network." -- Rubert ABC (talk) 22:24, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Self-published" means "published by the person who wrote it". Once again, notability comes from "significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject". The website in question is not independent of the subject so it cannot be used as evidence of notability. I do not need to prove that the website was there before 2009; it is enough to note that the biography there says nothing after 2005 and that it would be very strange to write a biography in 2009 which doesn't mention the most recent things the person did. And, to be honest, if your argument that Edna Jeffrey is notable depends crucially on whether this website was written in 2005 or 2009, it is an extremely weak argument. Google image search results for "film entertainment" are completely irrelevant to the issue of Edna Jeffrey's notability. Dricherby (talk) 08:35, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Certainly not notable for the novel, which is in a total of two libraries according to Worldcat, nor the film about the novel, which hasn't been made yet. It would be better top have the article about the Baths. DGG ( talk ) 14:37, 13 May 2013 (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.
