Talk:Anita Rosenberg

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC
	This article was accepted from this draft on 13 May 2023 by reviewer CNMall41 (talk · contribs).

Biography: Actors and Filmmakers

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers.

Anita Rosenberg article status

@Lewolka

Thank you for reviewing the draft of the Anita Rosenberg article. Some questions regarding the reasons for rejection:

The comment: does not pass WP:FILMMAKER

Anita Rosenberg was the director of four films in the 1980's. This should qualify her as a filmmaker.

Her IMDB credit: https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0742171/bio?ref_=nm_ov_bio_sm

I think a number of reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject have been cited in the references and links section.

Please comment on

do you consider the subject to be a filmmaker?
are the sources reliable and independent of the subject? a number of newspaper articles are cited as well as IMDb.
is the subject notable? if not, why?
can specific changes be made to ameliorate the tone or choice of words?

Thank you!

Georgesben (talk) 06:36, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Georgesben, Those guidelines are used to help evaluate whether or not she meets the general notability guideline as a WP:FILMMAKER.

You need sources (not IMDB which has user generated content) that can clearly demonstrate once of the following:

She is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors; or
She is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique; or
She 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 multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or 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
Her work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.

Hope this helps, Best Lewolka (talk) 10:07, 25 April 2023 (UTC) edited Lewolka (talk) 11:18, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Addressing the points above: other than IMDb, in the References section below the wikipedia entry, Anita Rosenberg is cited as being the director, co-director, or associate producer of several films in major independent newspapers: the Los Angeles Times, the Cincinnati Post, the Philadelphia News, the Albuquerque Journal, and others. Furthermore, her role as an early female film director in an otherwise male dominated industry is contextualized as well the role of her films is cited as being important in reversing formulaic depictions of women in Hollywood comedies of the 80's.

She has a body of work in film. The work is annotated in the article by independent objective news sources. Her role in film making has been noted to be significant in the publications. Georgesben (talk) 23:06, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to resubmit but like I said I do not think that she can pass Notability. Too much of the article seems to be original research, maybe from someone closely associated with the subject?. Statements such as “She made the most of the opportunities presented during her time in the film industry and has earned a spot in B-Movie archives” and mentioning that she is currently working on a book to be published in 2024, neither supported by any source. The draft also includes some problematic statements such as listing her film as one of “Leonard Maltin’s list of favorite films in 2002” when the reference is actually about “the funniest movie titles of all time” chosen by a Mister Movie on Philadelphia Radio. Most of the citations are about two films that already have an article on Wikipedia. There isn't enough about her to justify an article. Best, Lewolka (talk) 13:37, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarifying comments and suggestions. Your help is appreciated.

Best, Georgesben (talk) 04:24, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Revision notes

I took the time to find more coverage that is about her. I include some references that focus on her and her career instead of just the films. Georgesben (talk) 01:46, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I moved this to the mainspace based on this and this as they are both about her and not just mentions along with the films. I would say to be careful with sources that are non-independent such as interviews. They can only be use sparingly and only for certain content. You used VoyageLA and Vice. Vice has plenty of context prior to the actual interview which can be used but we cannot support other content with it. Voyage LA supports her degrees and we generally use an independent secondary source for that. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:03, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]