Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arny Schorr


 * 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  18:08, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Arny Schorr

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Poorly-sourced promo piece about non-notable exec, fails WP:GNG / WP:BIO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:56, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:56, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:56, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete overly promotional article on a non-notable individual. If we are going to throw around words like "pioneer" we need lots of sources to justify it. Extraordinary claims (being a pioneer in a field) require sourcing that match them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:20, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment As one of the executives since the start of the home video business, the claim is legitimate and is supported by the articles included, but I will add more today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradmarcus (talk • contribs)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Go  Phightins  !  11:43, 18 March 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep: The two billboard sources are significant enough to establish notability, which is all that matters. The comment regarding being a "pioneer" is irrelevant to a deletion and should be taken up on the talk page as part of the editing process. Macktheknifeau (talk) 13:44, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Needs a lot of work, and is probably my Terrible BLP Image of the Day. I've come around about "articles that might be notable but need a ton of work"; a lot of stuff is worse than a redlink, in terms of ever actually getting improved. That said, I don't think this is worse than a redlink. Those sources might be difficult to draw up at first, and if they aren't, there's likely even more that is considering the era involved (trust me -- any newspaper coverage on Google from the 70s/80s is about 5% or so of what you can get in paywalled search sites). I think there's enough demonstrated here for people to be encouraged to rewrite it. Vaticidalprophet 17:08, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kieran207 ( talk - Contribs ) 00:51, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Most newspaper mentions are in wire service articles where he is quoted in his capacity at Rhino in 1989–90. I'd merge or redirect to Rhino Entertainment, personally. Sammi Brie  (she/her • t • c) 07:25, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect with no prejudice against recreation if someone can find adequate sourcing. With the sources that are in the article right now, I don't see notability as established – I can't see the online Billboard source, but the book one doesn't strike me as very significant coverage, and the NYT pieces go into the same direction; since this is a BLP, I believe that we need to take special care when it comes to sourcing standards, and unless the remaining Billboard source backs up all the content currently in the article, I don't think it's sufficiently verifiable to stay up. Blablubbs&#124;talk 16:19, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect to Rhino Entertainment, with no prejudice against restoring to draft if additional sourcing can be found. Removing the unusable content from this article would leave nothing worth calling an article. This level of introduction of material should not be rewarded with any measure short of deletion. BD2412  T 05:56, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Attempted a rescue: I have tried to fix its tone to be more professional, please take a look there. I do not know, however, whether it is really that notable, and I am neutral over that. --DePlume (talk) 21:02, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - content rescued and additional sources added. Article also reorganized and the lead was expanded. Two companies that he founded got sparing coverage, which just barely puts him over the top, and also argues against a single redirect. TimTempleton (talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  23:03, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - his direct connection to Rhino and the Variety story are the bare minimum for notability. Bearian (talk) 15:44, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete The NYT source is a single passing mention and one the Billboard sources is a 404 error. Nothing here convinces me of notability and in my book this fails WP:GNG  Velella  Velella Talk 18:57, 7 April 2021 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.