Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric Zaccar


 * 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   delete. This boils down to deciding if 1 newspaper article can confer notability, and in this case the argument that it does not is the stronger. Kevin (talk) 05:28, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Eric Zaccar

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

A minor local playwright and musician. I don't believe this person meets the requirements of WP:BIO (and specifically WP:AUTHOR and WP:MUSIC). There are no reliable sources about the subject, and I can find very little about him. Even taking the unsourced article, all it asserts is that he's written some plays which have been performed by local groups; there's no indication any of these performances are notable, that the plays were reviewed by anyone, and certainly nothing like WP:AUTHOR's criterion that he is in any way an "important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors." The only coverage at all I can find about him is a single NY Times local-section mention of his play (here) which has little detail about him, and some mentions of a jury trial of which he was foreman (here). His musical and photographic efforts appear to be of similarly marginal significance. So I don't believe he's anything other than a very minor local figure with no general relevance, influence, or importance, and so that it's inappropriate that Wikipedia have an article devoted to him. Finlay McWalter • Talk 21:55, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Qualifying what I said above, the Ken Starr play has been reviewed, but only in very very minor local publications and then only to a very small degree. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 22:28, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Some users may dispute the validity of these !votes, as they are made by anonymous and/or newly registered users and therefore may be sockpuppet !votes. See Sock puppet.
 * Delete – I was going to stick a PROD on this piece of vanispamcruftisement after putting some lipstick on it, but this works, too … there may be beau coup "references", but they don't amount to "significant coverage" as defined by WP:N. &mdash; 141.156.161.245 (talk) 19:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep  The New York Post, the New York Times, and New York Newsday can hardly be called " very very minor local publications" as the user below has suggested.   Eric Zaccar's work has been written about in all of those publications, and discussed at length on national major market radio programs, like Howard Stern, Joe Franklin and Joey Reynolds.  Eric is listed as a prominant playwright and lyricist in Joseph Papp's Public Theater archives, and Mr. Papp was widely considered to be the most renowned theater producer of the latter half of the twentieth century.  By all projections, Mr. Zaccar's upcoming feature film, WITHOUT HATE, is going to be a serious contender in the market.  His plays have been produced all around New York City, and his last screenplay, ON THE OTHER SIDE, was produced as a feature film and distributed internationally.    Though the user below seems to a gifted artist and photographer, he does not seem to be in New York, or the United States.   I'm not sure exactly how he is receiving his information about an American writer, or why he seems to be on a personal vendetta against someone that he does not know, and knows little about.          —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dreamdesignernow (talk • contribs) 21:06, 19 October 2009 (UTC)  Dreamdesignernow put this comment at the top of the page (so "the user below" means the nomination); I've moved it down to its place in the contemporaneous stream of comments -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 21:21, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * There isn't a shred of evidence for most of what you say in the article. The Post and Newsday mentions are tiny scraps on minor pages. The NY times story discusses the play, not Zaccar, and is in the local pages. The local pages of the times are like the local pages of any other US newspaper, and are no more evidence of notability than the same 3 column inches would be in the Sheboygan Press or the Duluth Tribune. None of these amounts to even a tiny review of a single play; one can hardly claim to be a noted playwright when no noted theatre critic has reviewed your play. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 21:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Unless I am missing something, the only thing I can find on Google is Zaccar's comments following jury duty. I don't see anything about being a famous playwright. Warrah (talk) 02:37, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep  Google again, Warrah.  Of the thousand plus articles and pages that come up about Eric Zaccar, less than ten per cent of them deal with said jury trial.  Of course, all of that should be changing soon.   The buzz in the business is, Eric's new screenplay, Without Hate, based on the afore mentioned case, is in pre-production and should be a major motion picture, within the year.  I've been around the New York theater and independent film scene for quite a while, and I can tell you that Eric is rather well known, and well regarded.  If I have to vote, I'm obviously going to say keep the article!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robroams (talk • contribs) 04:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)  Note that Robroams has no other contributions -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 09:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment – Sorry, Robroams, but this is not an election, so there is no "voting" (see How to discuss an AfD) … decisions are reached by consensus, and as you can see, the community is quick to recognize sockpuppets of blocked users … besides, "buzz" is no substitute for "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" … just where are these alleged articles about him in New York Post and Newsday? We cannot just take your word that he "is rather well known, and well regarded" … it's all about verifiability, particularly when it comes to biographies of living persons. &mdash; 141.156.161.245 (talk) 10:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not alleged.  Eric's play, Starr's on Broadway, was plugged in the New York Post by Cindy Addams, a nationally renowned columnist, and Liz Smith, whose column was also syndicated to Newsday and many other papers.  Look in the press clips section of starrplay.com or call the papers for verification, since you seem to have a lot of time to put into this.  If Eric Zaccar is such an insignificant writer, why would they even mention him (and why are so many people spending so much time on this site, arguing about him)?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robroams (talk • contribs) 15:34, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep  I'm part of the team that's producing the film, Without Hate, and I can tell you that the screenplay didn't come cheap.  It's a truly brilliant piece of work that had twenty five actors, producers and industry people in the room stunned, at the first table reading.  Eric was well known around New York for a long time, but his national, and dare I say international recognition are moments away.
 * The article should remain. If I was going to question anything it would be why a photographer and computer programmer, who doesn't seem to live on the same side of the world as Eric, is so obsessed with slandering a writer that he doesn't know, and doesn't know anything about.   Actually, the photographer doesn't seem to live anywhere, or at least not anywhere that's apparent on his long, rambling web pages or many fragmented E-Mail addresses.


 * We still need Eric around for last minute rewrites, and I'd hate to think that we have to increase our budget to include bodyguards to protect him from a possible stalker. — Ariellamarie (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Why is it necessary for me to have commented about other articles?  This is a subject that I care about, that I'm WELL INFORMED about, and that has a DIRECT IMPACT ON MY BUSINESS and my life.  Again, one must question why this writer, that you don't know and that you call insignificant, has driven you to such a vengeful, venomous, arguably libelous attack.  Then again, to prove liability, it would probably be necessary to find a mailing address, or even a valid E-Mail address to serve court papers to, somewhere on your many long, rambling web pages.


 * Again, I say keep the article!  Get rid of the nasty comments.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ariellamarie (talk • contribs) 18:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete There's a lot of water between me and the subject of this article, but that doesn't mean I hate him or am disqualified from commenting. The comments above about 'other articles' are because we get a lot of people suddenly making a lot of noise about one particular subject, which they appear to be connected to, and then disappearing again. They mostly seem to think this is a voting situation. It isn't. The bold type Delete or Keep is just a marker, and should only be used once per account. Other remarks are 'Comments'. You are 'well informed' about this matter. Can you give some evidence of the notability of the subject - in terms of reliable third party sources? Please note that the new screenplay falls foul of one of our policies in terms of notability as it hasn't yet come out. If it were going to be a film by Spielberg, and there was good reliable evidence of this, yes - good case for notability. By a company that returns only 5 Google hits, 2 of which are their own site, I'm afraid not. As to the subject here, I can get a lot of ghits. The first 10 pages return nothing that I would consider up to our requirements. If you can provide what I couldn't find, please do. As to slander, there is none as this is written. Libel? I've looked carefully and can't see any either. I am not a lawyer, but I would imagine many would be happy to give professional opinions. A lot of the editors here would prefer to see an article saved rather than deleted. (If for no better reason than to avoid Egg on Face Syndrome...) But the article must fit our requirements. In my opinion, this one doesn't. If it can be saved, all to the good. Over to you - you know him. I only know what I see here and Google. Peridon (talk) 20:33, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Your points are logical, if not necessarily accurate, but what I find detrimental and borderline libelous is this: My small, relatively new company has quite a lot riding on our upcoming feature film, Without Hate.   However, while we're out, working 24-7 to secure the rest of our financing, attract the interest of talent, lock up distribution, tend to a thousand other details, and overcome the many other ordinary and expected obstacles that are inevitable when producing any feature film, we now have to deal with the fact that, when someone googles our writer, they see articles calling him “unimportant” “very minor” and “marginal.”


 * Besides the quality of Eric's work, it's his solid reputation that we were counting on when we purchased his script.  Unfortunately, investors don't simply finance a film because they like the screenplay or story.  Among many other things, they generally want to know who the writer is.  As you yourself stated, google is considered a reliable way to check someone out.  And as I'm sure you know well, Wikipedia pages are generally among the first to come up, when someone with an article is googled.  In plainer English, the words of the person who introduced this dispute can turn out to be extremely costly and extremely damaging.


 * Another point that I feel compelled to make here is that, while Eric Zaccar is a rather versatile and complex talent, he has assured me that he's not now, nor has he ever been or claimed to be a musician, of any type.  No articles, in Wikipedia, or anywhere else on or off the internet, state or insinuate that Eric has ever played any kind of musical instrument.   Since the afore mentioned dispute instigator seems to be making the character destruction of a total stranger into his personal mission in life, it would be nice if at least SOME of his most basic information was accurate.


 * Maybe there are a fair amount of writers, actors, directors, artists, and musicians out there with more google-able credits than Eric Zaccar, and maybe some of them aren't mentioned in wikipedia.  My suggestion is, rather than have bugs scouring the internet for articles to remove, why not use the same time and energy to scout for real talent, and find others, like Eric, who are worthy of your recognition?   It is, after all, an encyclopedia of the people, isn't it?   —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ariellamarie (talk • contribs) 13:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment – There are no "bugs scouring the internet for articles to remove" … editors simply monitor Special:NewPages here on Wikipedia for articles that are not worthy of inclusion based on established policies and guidelines … what part of Notability do you not understand? As for your financial backers, they do not find "articles calling him “unimportant” “very minor” and “marginal.”" … instead they find a single article with nothing but links to the subject's own website, www.starrplay.com … this discussion was started because the subject of the article has not "received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" … by your own admission, this article contains false information about the subject ("he's not now, nor has he ever been or claimed to be a musician, of any type") which is much more likely to be grounds for litigation than alleged damage to his reputation in this forum, so either the information or the article (I say both) should be removed. &mdash; 141.156.161.245 (talk) 15:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I just re-read Eric Zaccar's wikipedia page, and I didn't find one word that said or implied that he was a musician, of any kind. It said that he was a lyricist, and newspaper coverage, as well as Youtube videos of songs that he wrote, will confirm that.  It says that he has worked with and produced recordings for musicians.  As one of thousands of examples, George Martin, the world renowned music producer, worked with and produced The Beatles.  To the best of my knowledge, he's never been a musician himself.  The art of lyric writing involves scrolling down words.  Producing is a vague term that could involve hands on work, financing, coordinating or many other aspects of a production.  I agree with Arriellemarie.  If people are going to criticize someone that they don't know and don't know anything about, they should at least learn to read a simple short article and get their facts straight.       —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robroams (talk • contribs) 16:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep  I'm up near Philadelphia, these days, and I don't get to New York City that often.    However, I did make special trips for at least three of Eric Zaccar's plays.   I've been a fan of this great writer, ever since his college productions, when I did live in New York.  I loved "On the Other Side," and I can't wait for his upcoming movie, "Without Hate."


 * There are children dying for lack of food in Africa and other children dying because their insurance companies won't pay for their necessary operations, in the United States.  Isn't there something more important to debate than whether or not a hardworking, talented, prolific and versatile writer should have a wikipedia article?   And I say he should!! — Philg19 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Comment Three points to make. First, although the subject of the article may well be talented - I for one haven't said he is or isn't - that is not the question. Wikipedia has rules for inclusion. It has to have, otherwise it would be full of the sort of stuff that sank so many of the old usenet and bulletin board places. We still get loads of 'articles' that say 'Shawn is the most awesommnest everrrrrrrrr!!!!!!' or similar. Obviously, those go almost instantly. It's when you get to the more borderline cases that the trouble starts. You may think the subject of this article deserves an article. OK, prove it. We need far more than the unsupported opinion of a new visitor. Otherwise, come back Shawn, all is forgiven.... Second, while I am not decrying your hard work with your company, Wikipedia is not the place for promotying things (or people). It is an encyclopaedia, not a directory. Sure, a Wikipedia article could be a boost for a new or newish venture. Unfortunately, we'd be inundated with not only every neighbourhood florist's shop, but also the seller of flowers at the roadside in Swampville. Encyclopaedias are for recording what is of note not for discovering what is about to be. As I pointed out, a forthcoming Spielberg production is probably (not definitely, mind) of note - because of Spielberg. We need evidence from independent reliable sources even in his case. Thirdly, as one who writes myself, I do wish success to our subject here, and to the company doing the production. I won't be seeing the results, because I never watch films (other than Harry Potter and things like Ice Age) or plays (except for ones I've written...). I prefer books. I can see what's happening better when reading. Peridon (talk) 16:52, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * If, as you suggested, being involved in a production or pre-production with Steven Spielberg would be enough to legitimize Eric Zaccar as a wikipedia worthy screenwriter, then being involved in a musical with Joseph Papp should give Eric equal credibility as a playwright and lyricist.  While Mr. Spielberg can be considered one of many (or at least a handful of) truly great contemporary directors, Mr. Papp was widely considered to be the single most respected, renowned and important theater producer in the latter half of the twentieth century.  If you check the New York Public Library's archives for Joseph Papp, available online and considered a bible in the New York theater world, you'll find Eric Zaccar's name, somewhere between the revered playwright, Christopher Durang, and the great composer, Barry Manilow.  Eric is listed as lyricist and bookwriter, which in theater terms means playwright, for a Papp production called THE OEDIPUS COMPLEX.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ariellamarie (talk • contribs) 03:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep I agree with Arrielle Maria.  Google Eric Zaccar and you get at least a few legitimate references to film, theater, music, radio and television.   His work is also credited on the pages of numerous performers.  He seems to have an interesting and diverse enough career to warrant some coverage.
 * I also agree that, unless Eric's primary detractor, the person who began this whole debate, is an actual wikipedia employee, you have to question why he seems so passionately against someone who I'm assuming is a total stranger. — Oxentertainment (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep I've been going to see Eric Zaccar's plays since he was in NYU Tish Dramatic Writing, I've watched his career progress and I can tell you that, he's a force to be reckoned with.  Has society really reached the point where a man is judged by his google-ability?   Keep the article!!  — Radiating Truth (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment – I have started a list of the sock/meatpuppets who have "voted" here … if only they had devoted as much energy to improving the article under discussion. &mdash; 141.156.161.245 (talk) 02:30, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we “sock/meat puppets” (whatever the hell that means) reserve our comments for subjects we know and care about, and don’t sit in our rooms obsessing about people and things that have no effect on our own lives.


 * Let’s examine Eric Zaccar, once again:  He has at least a few checkable credits as a playwright, lyricist and screenwriter.   At least one or two of his pieces have been written about in several major New York newspapers.   Numerous noted actors on IMDB site his plays, that they appeared in, on their “other works” section.   Many references to Kenneth Starr site Eric’s play, about the notorious special prosecutor.   And Joseph Papp, one of the greatest theater producers in history, has Eric's name listed in his official archives, as a book and lyric writer for one of his musicals.


 * Now let’s look at the person who started this debate and who, I’m assuming is now using his IP address to comment, since his name has been brought into question:  He has long rambling diatribes, on both wikipedia and his own pages, that go on and on about many arguably pointless subjects, and that disclaim all the spam that others claim to have received from his sites.   He seems to have little to do with his time, since he always appears to be right there at his computer, monitoring this page and ready to pounce, every time someone says something favorable to the subject.   He has some moderately interesting photographs, that he claims to have taken, on his web pages, but they all seem to be of animals and inanimate objects.  It makes you seriously wonder if he’s ever actually had a live, human, in person interaction.


 * None of his E-Mail addresses seem to be valid, and the whois page for his web domain lists phone numbers, like 555-1212, and conflicting mailing addresses, from England to California.  Plus, like Jim Carrey’s psychotically obsessed stalker character in the film, The Cable Guy, even his name seems to be from a vintage television program.   Wasn’t Maude married to Walter Finlay?


 * On top of all of that, his reading comprehension skills leave something to be desired. Again, though not one word in wikipedia, or anywhere else, indicates that the subject of this debate is a musician, this self appointed critic calls him one, in his very first sentence; and a minor one, at that.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robroams (talk • contribs) 17:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I’m sure that this was first suggested as a joke, but the more I read about this man, the more I think that the subject of this debate might want to start examining whether he could be a serious threat.  But then, how could legal action be taken against a web phantom who could live anywhere and be anyone?


 * And in all seriousness, why is this person so adamant about a total stranger? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robroams (talk • contribs) 16:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Clarification I said a forthcoming production by Spielerg 'could' be notable. Not that everyone who has worked with him (even the tea lady - vital but not notable) who has worked with him was notable. I don't say that Zaccar isn't notable - just that we are having a lot of heated air and no reliable evidence. We're not judging him by his Googleability. We're not judging him. We're judging this article - and we're judging by the standards of the organisation hosting the article. To use the example of my awesome friend Shawn again, are you willing to put Shawn's awesomeness up on your website for all to bow down to? You may be. (Personally,I don't advise it. Shawn's not so bad - it's his mates...) Get my drift? If you don't like the way Wikipedia works, start your own free access encyclopaedia. Can be done. (Not saying it's easy.) In the mean time, come up with the evidence that we are begging for, or please stop wasting our time with re-iterations of Eric Zaccar's awesomeness that are little better supported than Shawn's. Show that firstly Oedipus was notable, and secondly that Zaccar wrote it. Show us the pig - all we can see is the poke. Peridon (talk) 17:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, it was a while ago, before things like theater programs and reviews were saved on the internet. However, the link below is to as official a record as exists for Joseph Papp's Public Theater and New York Shakespeare Festival, the most noteable theater producer, and theater group, in New York.  Everyone from DeNiro to Pacino to Dustin to Meryl proudly display their work with Papp on their resumes.


 * Search for Eric's name.  It's right there between Barry Manilow's and Christopher Durang's. http://www.nypl.org/research/manuscripts/the/thenys02.xml


 * There are also two short Youtube versions of the Oedipus musical, that Eric animated himself (rather badly, or campily, by his own admission). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robroams (talk • contribs) 17:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Sigh I do wish people would leave personalities out of this. For the record, sockpuppets are extra accounts operated by one person. When this is used for vandalism or for the purpose of influencing debates by inflating the numbers, this can lead to blocking - after the correct procedure has been gone through. Meatpuppets are like sockpuppets, but are accounts run from associates of the puppetmaster rather than directly. Also can be blockable. Are you going to mount attacks on all of us who try to uphold Wikipedia's standards, or do your bit to save the article? Over to you, whoever (and how many) you may be. No evidence = no article. I'm trying to see if the article is savable. What am I getting? 'Eric is awesome.' Is this Oedipus Complex notable? It was 'optioned' by Papp, but was instead produced as an animated 'ten minute musical'. I quote from "Eric Zaccar (c) 2006 by Central Art Productions Inc." at http://www.encyclopedia.com/video/gXlo1x9mQPU-oedipus-complex-original-rock-miniopera.aspx If you know more, let us know. The world of ten minute musicals is not one I frequent. Peridon (talk) 17:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC) And will everyone please sign their posts with four ~ things - it saves work for the poor signing bot. Thanks.
 * Quote from the link above at the NYPL: "File concerning the musical entitled The Oedipus Complex (Book and lyrics by Eric Zaccar; Music by Linda Edlund). Contains script and lyrics." OK. Shows it exists. But no more. Keep trying. Peridon (talk) 17:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * From what I can see, no one, whether a sock puppet, a meat puppet or an independent entity, has criticized any of the wikipedia editors.  The ONLY person brought into question is the person who started this debate.  He doesn't seem to be an official editor, and he seems to be the only one who's used detrimental phrasing, like "minor" and "marginal."   The other wikipedia editors, who seem to work for the company, make logical points.  I don't want to say that this first man sounds like a lunatic, because that would be detrimental in itself, but read my prior comments and draw your own conclusions.   Signed Rob Stedelin  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robroams (talk • contribs) 17:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if Cindy Adams and Liz Smith, two of the most noted celebrity and theater gossip columnists in New York, actually have their older posts online, but you can find their blurbs about Eric's play, Starr's on Broadway, in the press section of Eric's websites. I believe the dates should be on the articles, if you want to check them for authenticity.   They don't usually bother mentioning "minor" and "marginal" writers.  Liz's column was nationally syndicated, so that blurb appeared in newspapers all over the country.  Starr's on Broadway is also sited on several official Kenneth Starr pages, and is mentioned on the imdb pages of the actors involved (as other actors mention other works of Eric's that they appeared in).


 * I have other things that I need to do, on this beautiful day. I'm sure you do, as well.   For a "minor" and trivial entity, Eric is sure taking up a lot of our time.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robroams (talk • contribs) 17:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Unpaid Comment The only people who work for Wikipedia in the sense of getting paid by Wikipedia are the technicians and office staff - and by what I've picked up there's not a lot of them. All the rest of us here are Joe Public. Some are visitors commenting on the subject here and nothing more. Some of us are working unpaid to help a valuable resource maintain its accuracy. I use Wikipedia a lot in my research and decided after finding a peculiar bit in an article (and removing it) that it was time to do my bit to help. Sometimes I've got time on my hands. Sometimes I need something to relax me. There is no such thing as an 'official' editor. Anonymous editors have certain restrictions, registered editors fewer, and administrators (also totally voluntary) have certain powers we don't. Up from that one gets to the Hierarchy who deal at policy level (and don't get paid either). Anyone (possibly not anonymous editors) can nominate an article here at AfD or at Speedy level. The decision doesn't rest with the nominator. Sometimes things get thrown straight back as obviously silly nominations. Others go to what is supposed to be a discussion (like this...) and after a time a 'closing admin' will weigh up the arguments and decide yea or nay. Articles may be brought back for retrial, or appeals may be made. Those who perform the closing job are usually experienced. You have to be experienced to get admin powers. I've made over 4000 edits of many sorts and don't think I'm ready yet to apply. (If I want to anyway...) 'Minor' and 'marginal' are his opinions. Go on - PROVE him wrong. Peridon (talk) 18:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC) Please don't ask us to find things - you find them. I need food....


 * Costly Reply So, what you’re saying is, the first man to write on this page has a right to call someone “marginal” and “minor,” in an internet article that anyone who googles the subject is likely to see? Is this self appointed editor running for office against Eric Zaccar?   Is he reviewing one of his plays?   As you said, he’s not even paid by wikipedia to offer this opinion.   Again, considering the small fortune that is currently invested in this writer’s name and reputation, and considering all the manpower hours that numerous people have put into his current project, I’d say this truly could be considered libelous.


 * My friend’s twelve year old son was suspended from school for posting negative comments about a classmate on the internet.  If the classmate’s family wanted to, they could have filed criminal charged.  What right does this man have to take it upon himself to offer slanderous opinions of someone he’s never had any contact with?


 * Though he did draw first figurative blood, and though most of Eric’s supporters, are rather sharp professionals in the world of entertainment and comedy who can more than match wits with the average computer geeks, I don’t think any of us has actually fought back by stating, outright, that the first person to write on this page has numerous web pages that make him sound, at best, borderline psychotic.  However, without using the old cliché about glass houses, I’ll just suggest to this man that people who live in rubber residences should be careful about what they throw into walls.   Some of it might bounce back and hit them in the face.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robroams (talk • contribs) 02:25, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment – Robroams, why don't you stop complaining, making personal attacks, spouting irrelevancies, and threatening legal action, and instead add some reliable source citations to the article? In other words, become pro-active and stop acting like a petulant child … and your constant failure to sign your posts only diminishes your credibility in this forum. BTW, this WP:AfD page will not appear in any Google search, i.e., just the article being discussed, not this discussion. &mdash; 141.156.161.245 (talk) 03:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - This NY Times article is a good start on establishing notability. But there needs to be more.  I am unable to find more nor has any actual citations been forthcoming.  Claiming coverage without specifics is not useful. -- Whpq (talk) 19:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The New York Times, the New York Post, New York Newsday, the Brooklyn Skyline, Joe Papp's Public Theater Archives, the radio shows of Howard Stern, Joe Franklin, and Joey Reynolds, write ups on Kenneth Starr, imdb pages about actors who've been a part of his pieces. Eric's work has been recognized at one time or another, in all of the above places.  Many of them are out there, on the internet, but not everything can be.   Archives do exist, somewhere.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robroams (talk • contribs) 23:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If they're out there, then why don't you find them and add them to the article, instead of just dropping names in this forum? Have you even read Notability and Verifiability? &mdash; 141.156.161.245 (talk) 03:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment – Well, it looks like this article is mostly a copy&paste of http://eric_zaccar.totallyexplained.com/ … can you say, copyright violation? Or is it just Plagiarism? &mdash; 141.156.161.245 (talk) 08:40, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * My bad! … that site is a mirror of an earlier version of the Wikipedia article! &mdash; 141.156.161.245 (talk) 09:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - Starr’s on Broadway, Eric Zaccar’s social satire for the stage about the Clinton-Starr-Lewinky absurdities, received such notoriety that Eric and the play are sited in a hundred online references to the former special persecutor.  That alone should secure Eric’s place in the books.   Michael Sandy’s tragic story is the subject of a rather in depth wikipedia article.  Eric’s involvement in that case is discussed in many newspaper articles, and Eric’s upcoming film, Without Hate, should become the definitive record of the story.


 * Just because New York Post and nationally syndicated columnists like Cindy Adams and Liz Smith, or newspapers like the Brooklyn Skyline, didn’t always publish their articles online, why does that make them less “official?” I grant you that copies of said articles seem like they can only be found on Eric’s own website, but they’re dated and their authenticity should be easily checkable.


 * I really don’t want to spend another day having this debate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robroams (talk • contribs) 14:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - There is no requirement that sources be online. Offline sources are perfectly acceptable.  If you can provide specific citations to these articles, then other editors can consider them. -- Whpq (talk) 15:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * For example, the bare link http://www.starrplay.com/images/pressclips/cindynew.htm is not as credible as ""and maybe include the page number … at least then someone can look it up at their local library, so it is verifiable, whereas anyone can Photoshop what looks like a newspaper clipping.
 * OTOH, this example is hardly what one could call "significant coverage", and it's more about one of the subject's works than it is about the subject, so it's still just a "mention". (And I'm not going to try and put any more lipstick on this pig, so you can replace the link with the citation. :-) &mdash; 141.156.161.245 (talk) 16:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You've got to be kidding, right? How anal retentive and how ludicrous do you want to get?  You have the dates and the newspapers.  If you're going to make the effort to go to the local library and access the New York Post and Newsday from May or June of 1999, it should take another three minutes to find the articles, even without the page numbers.   Just to help you out though, if I remember right, the columns of Liz Smith and Cindy Adams generally appeared somewhere around page six or page eight.   I can't guarantee this, though.   I could guarantee that, if you find the entire newspapers for the dates on top of the articles, you'll find the articles.


 * And as far as the articles being trivial, Cindy Adams and Liz Smith are well known for writing about celebrities.  I'm not saying that Eric is a celebrity, but he certainly wouldn't have been worthy of any kind of mention in either of their columns if he wasn't a known and respected writer.


 * Joe Franklin, the oldest established radio host in New York has interviewed everyone from Dean Martin to Frank Sinatra to Julia Roberts to Bill Cosby to Veronica Lake to Marylin Monroe. Oh, and he's interviewed Eric Zaccar on his program, too.  I think Eric actually had an open invite to come on whenever he wanted to.  Howard Stern has an equally extensive A-list of guests, and he too has had Eric on, more than once.   I'm not sure how this information can be verified, but I would bet that Eric has tapes.  If you had a direct E-Mail, rather than an IP number that replaced your rather questionable name, we could probably figure out how to send you audio clips.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robroams (talk • contribs) 21:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Very strong keep Even if there were no other references, a full NYT article entirely devoted to him is proof of notability--or, if one prefers, very close to a proof of notability, and just needing to be supported by another source, and there are several. The NYT article is about both the play and the playwright. Anyway, a NYT full review of a play a playwright's work proves the notability of the play & writing notable plays what makes playwright's notable. I am really amazed at the assertion that this is not significant coverage.  Once the references were presented here, the AfD should have been withdrawn. Anyone who sees this is  responsible for adding them to the article, and for one editor to blame another for not doing what he could equally well have done himself is not very logical.  Similarly, if the article needs trimming  to remove promotional language, anyone who understands the subject should do so.   DGG ( talk ) 16:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: The article under discussion here has been rescue flagged by an editor for review by the Article Rescue Squadron.

I've tried to add references, but self proclaimed editors and lords over this site keep taking them out or putting them in different places. Again, for one project or another, Eric has been covered in the biggest New York Newspapers and on the top radio shows. All of that should say that he's at least some kind of force to be reckoned with.
 * Delete as not notable. If it mattered, it would be a Strong Delete because (1) none of the editors !voting keep have added a single solid reference to the article, (2) the editor who added the tag added nothing else to the article, and (3) the sheer vitriol and WP rule breaking by the SPA's above. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 02:01, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:DEL none of those are reasons to delete. WP:JNN isn't and neither is the fact that the article hasn't greatly improved during this AfD.  Also, anyone other than me suspecting that the socks are trying to get this deleted?  Just ignore them and look at the sources. Hobit (talk) 23:55, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

From what I can see, that article has been up for at least a year or two, and it hasn't bothered or hurt anyone. These debates are torturous.

Who gets to decide that large companies can use this site to promote their products, white collar criminals are article worthy, but writers, who are out there making it happen, are not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robroams (talk • contribs) 14:28, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment If you find promotional articles, please nominate them either for Conflict of Interest or Spam. Just as we do. The big company articles are not BY the companies, but about them. They often say things the companies don't like and are usually monitored in case this gets removed. Spam articles come from small businesses on the whole, and are placed by someone in the company. If the company is considered notable enough for an article, the promotional stuff gets removed and the article tidied up (and monitored...). If not, it goes. Any article can be edited by anyone - subject to restrictions on certain controversial topics. If the references are worthwhile, mention them here and we'll see what we think. They may not be suitable - myspace and youtube (for examples) normally are not considered reliable evidence. Peridon (talk) 17:08, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for helping to make my point. Eric Zaccar's play, HOUSING was considered controversial, even though the whole statement it was trying to make was that the city of New York has every dime and every resource at it's disposal to house every homeless person, if the actual housing department used it's resources efficiently. Eric's social satire for the stage, STARR'S ON BROADWAY, also generally caused heated debates among audience members because of it's viewpoints on many political issues, from nuclear bombs to Watergate to the Kennedy assassination to civil rights to freedom of speech to (the play's title character), Kenneth Starr. We're counting on the publicity coming from the controversy that should surround Eric's upcoming film, WITHOUT HATE, because of the rather sensitive subject matter that has extreme supporters and opponents on both sides.

What should not be controversial is Eric himself, and a simple, non-political, objective, non-promotional, non-opinionated little article about him.

I’m sorry if I have no interest in objecting to the wikipedia pages that promote big companies. If people aren’t hurting me, or hurting anyone else I know, I really don’t feel the need to interfere with their business. Ask Eric to do it. If said companies are doing anything hurtful or immoral, he might be willing to make them the subject of his next major work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robroams (talk • contribs) 17:40, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No The articles I refer to are ones like Sex, Muhammed, or Jesus, where fanatics, idiots and schoolboys tend to head. These and many similar (and one or two rather unlikely sounding ones) have restrictions. Eric Zaccar's play doesn't quite rate that high in terms of controversy-magnetism. Peridon (talk) 21:32, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

You missed my point, but once again somehow managed to make it for me. Eric's plays may or may not be controversial. That's not the issue here. Is Eric himself, and a simple article stating basic facts about him, controversial enough to warrant all this debate?

WITHOUT HATE, the upcoming film of Eric's screenplay, will cause controversy. That's almost guaranteed. But again, I don't see that as the issue here.

Goodnight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robroams (talk • contribs) 07:10, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sigh The issue here is not the new play - that falls foul of WP:CRYSTAL anyway. The issue is his notability, which I can't see. The NY Times article reads to me like a story about someone who got sacked for wasting company time than about a noteworthy playwright. There's an animated short on YouTube which was based on something 'optioned' by a notable figure (but obviously not taken up. A mention in a file description in the NY libraries. I can't see much other claim to notability. I could be wrong. I haven't got the time to dig for references. And I'm not seeing much appearing. Peridon (talk) 18:24, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * delete fails WP:BIO. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:50, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - this nomination effectively boils down to whether the one relevent reliable source that can be found is enough to confer notability on to the subject. My opinion is that whilst one source can sometimes be enough to meet the notability threshold - whether in itslef or as confirmation of some other criteria - this is not one of those cases. In this case the source is a newspaper and is from the local news section of the newspaper; the complete lack of coverage apart from this source (and the content of the source itself) to me indicates passing local coverage - even if the locality is one of the greatest cities in the world - which does not normally establish notability. Guest9999 (talk) 21:14, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Notability has not been established Captain   panda  21:24, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep per DGG's well-reasoned argument. It's also worth noting that the article subject and his writings have received coverage in all three major NYC papers at various times; even though the Post and Daily News pieces aren't online, and are documented only on a website controlled by the subject, the site posts article scans, which are complete enough to be self-verifying. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:21, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep we've got a NYT's article and we don't need all (or any really) sources to be on-line. Looks like we've got at least 3 RSes per Hullaballoo Wolfowitz and the NYTs one is very very strong indeed. Hobit (talk) 23:52, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 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.