Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Louise Kobrak


 * 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. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Louise Kobrak

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Script supervisors are an important part of any production, but they are not inherently notable. None of this woman's accomplishments, good though they are, elevate her to encyclopedic notability. A ni  Mate  22:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. There's nothing in WP:N which suggests that certain activities or occupations are "not inherently notable", and I don't think any such list will be attempted. I suppose it comes down to the Notability and what is meant by it. As "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" is defined there, the sources for this person seem to me to meet the criteria, if only just.  Xn4  ( talk ) 22:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * An important issue is significance of coverage. The sources cited (IMDb, alumni directory, etc.) are directory and database entries, which are considered trivial and insufficient to establish notability. • Gene93k (talk) 22:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm interested in what you say. IMDb clearly is a database, but do we state anywhere as a policy that database sources are inherently trivial? We have an awful lot of articles which rely on IMDb, in particular, as a source. Xn4  ( talk ) 22:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:BIO has footnote #6 attached, which describes depth of coverage in general and specifically mentions IMDb. Nearly everybody who works in film gets an IMDb listing. IMDb "biographies" are user submitted. Their use in Wikipedia is controversial at best. • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Though private citizens might submit to IMDB, most enties are submitted by productions companies, publicists, and agents. There is some small editorial control, but not as much as Wikipedia would hope or expect, and such is thus colored by industry hype. IMDB as a source, specially where it relates to cast and crew, is acceptable as a tertiary source and should be supported by other sources. Inclusion in IMDB might be used to further confirm an actors or cast work history, but simply being a part of a project... any project... does not create a notability. Being a script supervisor on a film, or a hundred films, as important to the pordction as that job is, does not create a notability. Even were these films all academy award winners... being script supervisor is not notable, as notability is not inherited. If you were anble to say something like... Louise Kobrak was the first woman to script supervisor in space, and could document this statement with a review or article in the New York Times.... THEN you'd have a notabilty. What you have been able to show is that Louise Kobrak has been a script supervisor for lots of films. What you have to do is show why that makes her more notable than the hundred/thousands of others who have been scipt supervisors on hundreds of films. Basically, what you have to show is exactly what makes this fact about her so notable. Its existance is not in doubt... its notability is. Has she won awards? Has she been in public office? Has her name been in the headlines? What makes her unique... special... memorable... notable?   Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 01:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.   —• Gene93k (talk) 22:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:BIO. Significant WP:RS not found. RS critical coverage of this person's work neither cited nor found for WP:CREATIVE. Also, the script supervisor job description is more managerial than creative. This article is a resume. • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. If she had been involved with some well-known productions, she still wouldn't qualify for inclusion. As it is, none of her credits are particularly notable. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete No significant coverage. Maralia (talk) 03:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:N and WP:BIO.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 06:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Did some searches after writing my comment (above). Nearly every link simply gives a short filmology... such as do The New York Times and Hollywood.com. Interesting that TV.com gives her a 1996 writing credit for season 2, episode 17 of the TV series "High Tide" but IMDB does not. Pretty much, these searches could do no more than confirm her existance under several AKA's and confirm that she did indeed work in all those films and many more. However, none showed her being a script supervisor as having any special notability. And again, her working with notables does not make her notable, as notabilty is not inherited. The Notability indeed asks for "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". And yes, those sources exist... but all they do is confirm she has been a script supervisor on many films. Period. That was never in doubt. But not one of those sources say anything about the woman or her skills or her contributions. When dealing with the notability of persons, one must refer to WP:BIO. One must pay close attention to its very first paragraph: "The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"; that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded". Once that basic concern is addressed, then one may address the sources that support the assertion... not before.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 06:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * delete she fails the notability and verifiability criteria. No doubt that she exists but, she doesn't seem to meet the importance/significance for notability nor the significant coverage from multiple reliable 3rd party sources for verifiability. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  20:06, 3 September 2008 (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.