Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erna Lazarus
From 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The result was speedy keep , nom has withdrawn, no remaining delete votes. Nice job, folks. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:02, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Erna Lazarus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The article has been tagged for no having no sources on the article's page since 2007. WP:DEADLINE does not extend into infinity. The only source the editor who deleted the prior prod notice could find was evidently not sufficient to establish notability. Assuming good faith, if it we're, the editor would have put it into the article, instead of onto the talk page. I agree. It's not enough to pass WP:GNG, let alone WP:BIO. I can find no better. If (A) the tag has been there since 2007 and (B) the editor who opposes Prod can find no source that establishes notability, and (C) I can find none either, WP:DUCK David in DC (talk) 18:24, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as nominator. David in DC (talk) 18:27, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment An IMDB external link has now been added to the page. IMDB is not a reliable source to establish notability. David in DC (talk) 18:49, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Who said it was? postdlf (talk) 19:22, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Something made an editor insert it as the only "source" on the page. I've now tried to use the one obit offered on the talk page to establish WP:GNG. I think the sole article, which is actually a squib from UPI quoting a different periodical, is not sufficiently reliable and does not establish notability. I've asked for a proper cite for every "fact" in the article that comes from IMDB or from thin air. In the best case scenario, which I think my rescue attempt currently displays, the article still fails WP:GNG. Surely a precis in UPI of an obit in Daily Variety is not enough to establish notability. Were it so, imagine how many hack writers, mildly colorful extras and totally non-notable make-up artists, gaffers and best boys would merit WP:BIOs. David in DC (talk) 19:31, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I added the imdb link because it was missing, and I added it to the "external links" section, not as a reference to provide sourcing or to satisfy GNG. That aside, you might have been better off leaving the article as it was pending the AFD, as I don't think your changes were constructive or in furtherance of a robust AFD.[1] The sentence "UPI reported that Daily Variety reported that Lazarus..." is one of the worst I have ever seen added to an article (and arguably WP:POINTy), and your gutting of the filmography hardly helps readers judge the subject or research it further. I wish others luck in expanding this, if they can. postdlf (talk) 19:43, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I respectfully disagree. I've created the best case article with the only source you (or I) can find. I properly marked everything that just came out of thin air. Filmographies are only supposed to have six films. I used the four in the UPI squib of the Variety story. I added the Lewis & Martin bit. After all that, it's still a duck. David in DC (talk) 19:53, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I added the imdb link because it was missing, and I added it to the "external links" section, not as a reference to provide sourcing or to satisfy GNG. That aside, you might have been better off leaving the article as it was pending the AFD, as I don't think your changes were constructive or in furtherance of a robust AFD.[1] The sentence "UPI reported that Daily Variety reported that Lazarus..." is one of the worst I have ever seen added to an article (and arguably WP:POINTy), and your gutting of the filmography hardly helps readers judge the subject or research it further. I wish others luck in expanding this, if they can. postdlf (talk) 19:43, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Something made an editor insert it as the only "source" on the page. I've now tried to use the one obit offered on the talk page to establish WP:GNG. I think the sole article, which is actually a squib from UPI quoting a different periodical, is not sufficiently reliable and does not establish notability. I've asked for a proper cite for every "fact" in the article that comes from IMDB or from thin air. In the best case scenario, which I think my rescue attempt currently displays, the article still fails WP:GNG. Surely a precis in UPI of an obit in Daily Variety is not enough to establish notability. Were it so, imagine how many hack writers, mildly colorful extras and totally non-notable make-up artists, gaffers and best boys would merit WP:BIOs. David in DC (talk) 19:31, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Who said it was? postdlf (talk) 19:22, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Erna Lazarus was one of the founding members of the Screen Writer's Guild and screenwriter for dozens of files and TV shows. She was most prolific in the 1930s-1950s which is probably why there aren't a lot of sources online to establish notability. Instead of nominating this article for deletion, why not notify the appropriate WikiProject, WT:FILM? Perhaps the editors there have print sources which can be used. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:17, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Please read my expanded request there. David in DC (talk) 19:53, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I removed the prod because it didn't assert that the subject was non-notable, only that no sources had been added for years, which isn't a compelling reason for deleting a deceased subject that seemed prima facie verifiable and possibly notable. I stumbled on this randomly via a watchlisted talk page notice so this isn't my usual subject area, but I hate to see anything get deleted for fixable problems. However, other than passing mentions, this newswire obituary is all I could find online: http://www.upi.com/Entertainment_News/2006/03/14/Screenwriter-Erna-Lazarus-dead-at-102/UPI-48531142379864/ ("She helped pave the way for women in Hollywood as one of the first screenwriters in the studio system, Variety said.") I could not locate online the Variety story mentioned, but it certainly suggests significance, which suggests notability. Perhaps someone able to search offline sources (and more familiar with Hollywood industry bios) can find something else, because it seems that a female screenwriter was unusual in her day. I don't know whether her screenwriting credits in and of themselves may satisfy any notability guidelines in the absence of readily available sources. Good luck. postdlf (talk) 19:22, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - appears to be a case of the right sources not being online. Billboard here in '54 refers to her as a "vet scripter", with a later issue showing her promoted to associate producer on "Mayor of the Town". If anyone has access to the "International Television Almanac", she shows up several times, credited with around 30 major studio scripts and stories.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:40, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep. Searching BGMI she shows up in the International Motion Picture Almanac from 1975-1982, 1984, and 1986. I've got the 1986 one in front of me right now and she has an extensive pedigree including a number of "sole-story" screenplay credits (e.g., Jerry Lewis and Dean Martin's Hollywood or Bust). She's also got extensive writing credits for everything from Petticoat Junction to Bewitched. Ima gonna head on over to her wikipedia article and do a little work (not a lot, but hopefully enough). She is indeed one of these people who seems to only appear in antiquated paper-based, multi-planed analogue information storage devices. --Quartermaster (talk) 23:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- How DARE she have her career begin and end before the internet was created. Shameful. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:54, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Sources added. Notability shown. Time to close. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:52, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Concur with MQS. As nominated, it merited deletion. But now, it's a horse of a completely 'nother color. I've stricken my !vote. I withdraw my AfD nomination. David in DC (talk) 13:56, 25 February 2011 (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.