Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Lederer


 * 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  Jclemens (talk) 05:23, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Michael Lederer

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Subject fails to meet the notability requirements set forth at WP:Notability (people) - further discussion below. JohnInDC (talk) 13:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete (as nominator):
 * The subject fails to meet the notability requirements set forth at WP:Notability (people) or WP:Author. In response to a proposed deletion, the article’s author offered several articles in support of notability on the subject article’s Talk page (some cited only on the related pages Nothing Lasts Forever Anymore and Mundo Overloadus) and I have (I think) evaluated them all, as follows.  I’ve also made my own (not exhaustive but honest) attempt to find other sources in support of notability of the subject, the book and the play, and failed.  (E.g., Google searches on “Michael Lederer” paired with the name of the book or play turn up little more than these articles or derivatives.)


 * In short, the subject is the son of a notable person, he has written a book and a play, and wrote (part of) and acted in a film that shared an award of indeterminate import in Poland. Those are not small achievements yet none of them have translated into any discernable third party coverage or, in turn, notability. (I anticipate offering up the other two articles for deletion soon – I don’t do so here because the analysis of each might be a bit different, and given the suggestion at WP:AFD generally not to lump different articles together if there’s any doubt.)


 * London's Evening Standard (February 1989) (could not locate article). As described in the subject article, this news article concerned the preservation of the ruins of a theater in London, and quoted the subject in passing.


 * New York Times (June 1998) Obituary of subject’s (notable) father, Ivo John Lederer.  Subject mentioned in passing.


 * Who is Who in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Could not locate entry. I am skeptical of any claim to notability based on the existence of a Who’s Who entry.


 * The French literary review Remanences, volume 16 (May 2001). Cited in this related article.  Cannot locate original article; all Google references to “Remances Michael Lederer” lead back to Wikipedia or variants.


 * The National Museum of Poland at Szczcin, where a film, Las Venice, involving Lederer as author in some capacity and as actor is said to have been co-winner of the 2005 Baltic Biennale. Cited at here, link to the Museum here. I cannot confirm the award (I don’t speak Polish) and award is of indeterminate significance.


 * UK's Poetry Society and The Londonist Book Grocer  merely note subject’s play – a staged reading, not performance - in a list of weekend events.


 * PS122 theater link,  merely notes that subject’s play will be performed in September 2010.


 * Subject sits on the board of Safe Haven Museum, which he co-founded in Oswego, NY. Museum itself is of uncertain notability and this position has entailed no discernable coverage.


 * Reviews of Lederer’s performances in the South China Morning Post, San Francisco Chronicle, San Jose Mercury News – cannot find these articles or evidence of them.


 * “The Land” website interview is not not an independent source.


 * JohnInDC (talk) 13:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep -Publications indicate sufficient achievement to merit inclusion, I think. There is enough useful biographical information here that we should tread lightly... Carrite (talk) 14:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep - Let me disclose that I wrote the original article re: Michael Lederer. I did not base his inclusion in Wikipedia on any one factor among those enumerated above by JohninDC.  I agree with him that any one of those taken alone may not merit inclusion under notability requirements as set forth in WP:Notability (people).  But taken together, the aggregate forms a body of recognized work that is of sufficient interest to merit inclusion.  Please consider:


 * PS122 theatre link,   notes that Lederer's play Mundo Overloadus will be performed in September 2010.  PS122 is an important theatre in Manhattan.  A quick search of the Web will disclose numerous references to it in the New York Times, Village Voice, and countless other publications of note.  That theatre's own verification that Lederer's play is about to be presented at the same venue now also hosting the famed Wooster Group and Mabou Mines demonstrates that his is "a substantial part of a significant exhibition" as set forth under Wikipedia's Notability Guidelins for Creative Professionals.  User Carrite, above, notes that "we should tread lightly."  To delete mention of this writer one month before his play is staged at such an important theatre, already notable, seems ill advised.


 * JohninDC writes above that "New York Times (June 1998) Obituary of subject’s (notable) father, Ivo John Lederer.  Subject mentioned in passing."  A look at that NYT article reveals that Michael Lederer is mentioned in the context of being a writer and editor.


 * Another reason JohninDC promotes for deleting the article on Michael Lederer is that "UK's Poetry Society and The Londonist Book Grocer  merely note subject’s play – a staged reading, not performance - in a list of weekend events."  The UK Poetry Society's verification that Lederer's play Mundo Overloadus was developed in London prior to opening at New York City's PS122 confirms this writer is of notable interest on both sides of the Atlantic.


 * Further to that, JohninDC writes "London's Evening Standard (February 1989) (could not locate article). As described in the subject article, this news article concerned the preservation of the ruins of a theater in London, and quoted the subject in passing."  That article, in London's largest circulation paper, was not describing just any theatre.  The Rose was the first Elizabethan-era theatre ever unearthed.  The article cited was specific: Evening Standard, 14 February 1989.  That article was published just before The Evening Standard began to archive its articles in an online database.  I have a copy of that article but do not know how to post a copy of it to assuage JohninDC's misgivings.  If somebody can please tell me how and where to present such evidence, I will be grateful.  It was THE article announcing the discovery of the theatre where the young Shakespeare began his career, alerting the public to its threatened destruction by real estate developers, and it quoted Michael Lederer as "An American scholar on site" who was calling on the public to rally to the theatre's defense.  The public did respond in an immediate and verifiably documented struggle, leading to those development plans being ammended, the theatre's ruins being saved and preserved (as they are today), and also leadiing directly to strict UK laws requiring archaeological survey be conducted prior to any major construction.  The lasting and significant effects of Lederer's call to action are of sufficient interest under Wikipedia guidelines for Academics, which note: "Many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources."   Nobody I think will be able to produce any earlier mention of the discovery of the Rose, confirming that Lederer's on-site role in publicizing and thus saving it was notable.


 * JohninDC dismisses Lederer's role as a co-founder of Safe Haven Museum in Oswego, NY, calling that museum "of uncertain notability." The museum ( http://www.oswegohaven.org/ ) documents the only group of Jewish refugees to be admitted into the United States during World War II, who were subsequently interred for the war's duration at a refugee camp in Oswego, the site of the museum.  It is a story told in the film Haven with Natasha Richardson, and here in a Charlie Rose interview with fellow museum co-founder Ruth Gruber  ( http://wejew.com/media/5293/Ruth_Gruber_Story_Haven_Interview_on_Charlie_Rose/ ). That group of refugees included Michael Lederer's father Ivo Lederer, and his grandparents, but I did not include mention of Michael Lederer's connection to the museum on the grounds of his family relationships, but because of his role as a documented co-founder of a museum that is notable under Wikipedia guidelines, and for anyone interested in the subject of 20th century Jewish immigration to America esp. touching on WW II.


 * JohninDC begins his case for deletion with the statement "the subject is the son of a notable person, he has written a book and a play, and wrote (part of) and acted in a film that shared an award of indeterminate import in Poland." The book in question, Nothing Lasts Forever Anymore (Barcelona: Parsifal, 1999 / ISBN 84-8725-98-7) was published in Spain by a small, prestigious (if non-commercial) publsiher of 20th century avant-garde writers.  It was published in both an English edition, and also in Spanish translation (ISBN 84-8725-99-5) as Ya Nada Dura Eternamente ( http://www.unilibro.es/find_buy_es/libro/parsifal_ediciones/ya_nada_dura_eternamente.asp?sku=476970&idaff=0Full / http://www.unilibro.es/find_buy_es/result_editori_id.asp?editore=5125&id_aff= ). I find it hard to argue that not having information about such a book would serve Wikipedia's aims better than having information about it.


 * I wanted to reference here some of JohninDC's notes made on the Michael Lederer discussion page, but he has deleted his own comments there, as well as edited mine. I have the disadvantage of being quite new to Wikipedia.  I did not think that one could erase a page's history like that.  I thought all we write is "indelible,"  and am sorry I cannot see his original arguments anymore, and mine to him as they were written.  My comments on that page seem out of context without reference to his comments that initiated them.


 * JohninDC also dismisses Michael Lederer's role in co-writing and acting in the film Las Venice, which was presented 2005 at the National Museum of Contemporary Art in Szczecin, Poland. (www.muzeum.szczecin.pl)  It was through that project that I became familiar with Lederer's work, when it was also presented at the Volksbühne Prater theatre here in Berlin.  As I note on the discussion page for Michael Lederer, I came to Berlin after Harvard as a Fulbright scholar working with leading theatres in Germany, and am now  doing a Ph.D. in Comparative Cinema and Media Studies at the University of Chicago.  I am not in the business of promoting Michael Lederer or his work.  I am, however, in the business of chronicling it as I consider him a likely subject te be included in my dissertation.  Above all I am in the business of analyzing his work, though I realize Wikipedia is not the place in which to do that, so kept what I wrote about him to the facts.


 * JohninDC also writes: "The French literary review Remanences, volume 16 (May 2001). Cited in this related article.  Cannot locate original article; all Google references to “Remances Michael Lederer” lead back to Wikipedia or variants."  As with the Evening Standard article, I have a copy of this journal, and if someone can please tell me how to submit relevant pages so they can be a part of this dicussion I would be grateful.  Because something is in print but not online should not exclude it from providing some supporting evidence.


 * I do not make the case that Michael Lederer is famous. Or that his impact has yet been enormous.  But he has made an impact.  In many places, many times.


 * Wikipedia's Notability Guidelines state that "Within Wikipedia, notability is an inclusion criterion based on the encyclopedic suitability of an article topic. 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."[1] Notable in the sense of being "famous", or "popular"—although not irrelevant—is secondary." Michael Lederer's documented achievements spanning the years and places noted above indicate he is of sufficient interest to warrant information about him being made available to those who seek it on Wikipedia.  ˜˜˜˜  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soupy123456789 (talk • contribs) 10:51, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - I have nothing to add to my original entry other than to observe that I don't dispute the facts of his life, but instead the claim that his professional output (i.e., a non-notable book, a non-notable play and some measure of contribution to an independent film) plus an assortment of media mentions establish him as notable. To all appearances Lederer has led an interesting life full of wonderful personal achievements - in his mid-50s he has a lot to be proud of - but I don't see how any of that sets him apart from millions of other people who have enjoyed career success somewhere above the norm.  Also, for the record, I have not tinkered with any page histories or edited anyone's comments in the course of this discussion.  Virtually all I've had to say on this subject (other than on this page) can be found on my own Talk page, here, and a review of that page history will show no nefarious edits.  I suspect that Soupy123456789 simply forgot to check back there.  JohnInDC (talk) 11:24, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - JohninDC states his personal opinon as fact when he describes Lederer's output as "non-notable." It would be better for him to frame that as "I believe that..."  I will do just that here:  I believe it is not true that "millions of other people," as JohninDC puts it, have had novels published in two languages and had a hand in saving a theatre as important as The Rose and had a play they've written accepted for production at a theatre as prominent as PS122 in NYC.  That theatre, on its own website (http://www.ps122.org/performances/mundo_overloadus.html ), describes Lederer as "an éminence grise of his generation."  The term means one who has wielded power and influence under the radar screen.  Lederer has emerged often enough from beneath the radar to warrant our attention.  Wikipedians are better served by having access, should they seek it, to this compacted information about him vs. not having such access.  To reiterate, the guideline calls for him to be "interesting or unusual enough to deserve attention," it does not say "famous enough."  (I'm sorry, I would like to sign this properly but my computer does not seem capable of making the four tildes in a way to do it, so again I have to sign manually) - Soupy123456789, 5 August 2010.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soupy123456789 (talk • contribs) 06:44, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - I have just added to the article being questioned information about the museum Lederer co-founded and helps guide. I will also note here something I would never add to the article itself, namely mention of the website for his play Mundo Overloadus (  http://www.mundooverloadus.com/  ) which includes a link to a statement he offers About Mundo.  Lederer's perspective described there hints at some of the reasons this writer is considering him a likely subject to be treated in my Ph.D. dissertation.  He spans worlds old and new, belonging to neither and yet both at the same time, in a way that has particular relevance to Berlin, and I predict to theatre in general. - Soupy123456789, 8 August 2010.
 * Comment - I think the article's taking on a bit too much ballast with the inclusion of still further details of Lederer's life that appear in no third party source whatsoever, and have returned to it to pare the thing down to a more approrpriate, and sourceable, scope.  Information known personally by a single Wikipedia editor researching the subject of a PhD dissertation is not, I don't think, sufficient to that end.  JohnInDC (talk) 12:20, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Someone please help a newcomer, not with my arguments, that's a separate question, but with the process. JohninDC has taken this discussion off this page, and made severe edits to the article in quesiton leading not just to serious ommissions, but to outright mistakes, only two of which I mention below.  I apologize that these next comments are so long.  In response to those draconian edits made today, I am responding to this from an airport lounge while in transit, not from a cool headed office where I could have and would have responded more compactly.  I am just going to cut and paste here comments that I just posted on JohninDC's talk page.  I highlight only two of the mistakes that he made today, and ask him, and anyone else reading this, to please consider if whether in the event he made these mistakes, he is also making others in his assumptions, and in his actions by editing before the review process unfolds.  Here are my comments as I wrott them on his talk page:  To JohninDC -   I'm sorry, but you are using language that sounds reasoned, at the same time as you are not only claiming, but doing, things that are not reasonable. For instance, today you took it on yourself to make such radical edits to the article about Lederer, that it now reads "Lederer co-founded of [sic] Safe Haven museum." And as you've rewritten it, you now have it say that Ivo Lederer was Michael Lederer's grandfather, not father. You are acting swiftly, and with a passion, even vehemence, that I cannot understand. You may have a great deal more experience at Wikipedia than I have, but unless I missunderstand the systerm that does not make you a Wikigod. It is you who proposed this article for deletion, which is fair enough. But you are not waiting for the process to unfold, so that others, not you, not me, can judge it for themselves - objectively on its merits. What is the point of submitting it for arbitration if you are taking the chain saw to it before the powers-that-be weigh in? I ask you also, Wikipedia guidelines state "Please do not bite the newcomer." But you are biting indeed, and rather savagely. We have exchanged comments for nearly a week, and I believed that the article would stand until an objective review. Could you not wait for the arbitration that you yourself requested? In your rush to judgement, you are deleting and rewriting whole portions, and you are making many mistakes. By not conducting our back and forth on the discussion page, but by taking it live to the article itself, you do not allow me the polite chance to respond thoughtfully, and carefully. As I write this, for example, I am in transit responding from an airport lounge. The discussion page would allow this back and forth without such urgency. I will provide reliable documentary evidence to support every single word I have written, but I literally cannot do it "on the fly" like this. As well as making errors in both grammar and facts as noted above, here are just two examples of the missclaims you have made. You write that: "I [JohninDC] removed, as implausible, the claim that he [Lederer] was an original member of of TheatreWorks (Silicon Valley), which was founded in 1970, when Lederer was 14." That is a polite way of calling it a lie, or at the least a mistake, on my part. The very first production by TheatreWorks in 1970 was Brecht's The Trial of Lucullus. Michael Lederer played Lucullus. TheatreWorks began that year as a youth workshop, then swiftly grew over the years into one of the most successful theatres in California. Again, this catches me in transit and I can't submit documents from here, but I can easily document ThearteWorks' leading position, and Lederer's leading role there over the years, once I get back to my home office. I asked for your help in understanding how best to submit those articles, and you did write...but then before I have had a chance to act on your advice, you made those cuts.  Even though I had written you earlier to say I would submit a good deal of supporting evience.  You decided beforehand that the evidence is not worthy.  That is a reaonable process??  However awkwardly, from this airport, just to prove how far TheatreWorks came from that earliest day with Lederer on its youthful stage, and through his many leading adult roles throughout the 80s as that theatre grew, here is a YouTube video of this year's Tony Award ceremony with the winner for Best Musical thanking TheatreWorks directly since it is was at htat theatre where the show Memphis began: http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=1452266302571&ref=share . Long after his role as I accurately described it as "an origianl member of TheatreWorks", Lederer went on to play Cyrano in Cyrano de Bergerac there in 1983, and so many other leading roles, but to find any mention of those other roles now someone will have to look at an earlier version of the article, because rather than wait for the supporting evidence I told you I would like to submit, you took it on yourself to cut out mention of them. You also state, with a full voice, that you removed from the article about Lederer any reference to the 2001 film Haven, "finding no mention of it." This is another example of why, JohninDC, you should let others cross-check facts in the article rather than taking it on yourself to single handedly decide what should stay in (nothing, according to you) and what should be jettisoned (everything, according to you, starting now and not after some inconvenient review).  Neither Lederer's role at TheatreWorks nor his hand in founding Safe Haven museum would in themselves make him notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia, I don't argue that.  But they are contributing factors, and you negate both. (As you do his role vis a vis the Rose theatre, which I don't have the chance to address in this comment.  But as proof that you are rushing to judgment, I can offer here a few eliable, documented, indisputable references to the fact that the 2001 film Haven does chronicle the story of a small band of 982 Jewish refugees that included Michael Lederer's father and grandparents, and the fact that that film told the notable story of the only such group of Jews admitted into the US from Europe during WW II. Michael Lederer later co-founded the Safe Haven museum to document that event, and helps guide it as a member of their board, and it is not for you, but for an objective review to decide whether that is to be considered "notable." Here are a few huried citations to dispute your insistence that the film Haven is not to be found, and / or has nothing to do with the museum Lederer co-founded: Here once again is the New York Times obituary for Michael Lederer's father, confirming he was a member of that small group of refugees interred at Oswego: http://www.nytimes.com/1998/06/25/world/ivo-john-lederer-a-scholar-of-eastern-europe-is-dead-at-68.html Please read the article and see the mention of Michael Lederer as writer and editor. You might well believe that such a mention in NYT in such a context is not notable, but why not leave it to others at Wikipedia to decide that for themselves? Here is the website for the museum:http://www.oswegohaven.org/ If you click on the Voices link on that site you can listen to the interview with Lederer's father.  I offer that only to demonstrate the personal bridge to his work at the museum.  Here is the Wikipedia article for Ruth Gruber, the woman who led those refugees from Europe to Oswego and who is the basis for the main character in the film Haven, played by Natasha Richardson: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruth_Gruber (I had no hand in writing this article, so please, JohninDC, don't brutalize it. That woman seems to deserve what has been written about her by others. Here is a Charlie Rose interview with Ruth Gruber about the film Haven:http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/3262 I offered that evidence to you before, proving the film's connection to the museum (so you would not think the museum itself not notable), but you still claimed no evidence of the film with Natahsa Richardson and Anne Bancroft.  Here is the IMDB site describing the movie, again confirming the fact that it is about the story told by Safe Haven museum: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0250862/ And finally (my flight will board soon, and this is all I can manage from here - this is all longwinded but you ask for documentation and I'm rushing to provide it) here is the Barnes and Noble site where the film is sold, with an accompanying description of the film: http://video.barnesandnoble.com/DVD/Haven/Natasha-Richardson/e/786936301267  Their description: "Editorial Reviews An American journalist takes on the dangerous responsibility of rescuing nearly a thousand refugees from a Nazi concentration camp in this two-part made-for-TV movie based on a true story. In the early days of America's involvement in World War II, Ruth Gruber (Natasha Richardson) is a reporter who has been giving particular attention to a recent story: President Franklin D. Roosevelt, in violation of United States policies of the day, has announced he will grant asylum in America to 982 European refugees from Nazi labor camps. But someone needs to escort the prisoners to the U.S.; Gruber, of European ancestry and Jewish faith, volunteers for the assignment over the objections of her parents (Anne Bancroft and Martin Landau). Gruber travels to Italy on behalf of Secretary of the Interior Harold Ickes (Hal Holbrook), where she helps the refugees board the U.S.S. Henry Gibbins. But Gruber discovers that the American sailors manning the ship regard their passengers as little better than their Nazi jailers, and the State Department declares, upon their arrival in the United States, that all the refugees are to be housed in a camp in Oswego, NY -- even those who have families willing to sponsor them in America. Gruber realizes her work with the refugees is far from done, and she bravely battles against both bureaucracy and prejudice to win both dignity and fair treatment for the new settlers. Haven was originally broadcast on the CBS television network on February 11 and 14, 2001. Mark Deming, All Movie Guide" I offer all that longwinded evidence just to show you two examples whre you rushed to judgement and erred.  There are many other sources you have missed in your "careful fact checking" and I will submit it to this page as soon as I can.  Because it is this discussion page, rather than live edits to the article in question, that I believe is the appropriate place for you to question points made, and for me or others to support them.  This began as a civil exchange, but on your side the extreme edits you made seemed to devolve into an attack. This newcomer wants to ask whoever reads this: is Wikipedia a one man operation, and is that man's name JohninDC ?? In the next day or so I will reinstate parts of this and other articles that you have cut away, and offer the evidence I can following your own suggestion in an earlier comment. In the meantime, why don't you please wait and let the process that you yourself intitiated unfold? Let others decide. You accuse me of "personal assessments" and - what did you write (I'm too blearly eyed to find it now) something about "bloviating" or something along those lines? You have made rash judgements, executed swift cuts carelessly, and without due regard for the process. Your own personal assessments you take to be fact. As you see from the two examples above, Lederer's early role at TheatreWorks and the fact of existence of the film Haven, as smart and articulate as you are you are capable of a rush to judgement, and making mistakes.  I want to please ask wiser Wikipedians than I (or you) to help this unfold in a process, not to be decided by one man, or one woman. - Soupy123456789, 8 August 2010


 * Comment - This seems to be spiraling well out of hand and it would be very helpful if another editor would weigh in with their views on notability, reliable sourcing, original research, and the various other policies that are implicated here. In the meantime, other than the copyedit errors pointed out above (which I've fixed), I stand by my edits paring down the article.  JohnInDC (talk) 00:25, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * comment The minimal threshold for a stand alone article is significant coverage in reliable third party sources. PS122 site as the host of the event is not an independant third party. Mention of the subject's occupation in an obituary about his father is not significant coverage. Being related to notable people is not individual notability. I do not have time to go through more right now, but am not seeing anything so far that meets the criteria. Active Banana (talk) 14:50, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete: No substantial coverage in WP:RS, plenty for the scientist, an athlete, a property developer of the same name. Fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:CREATIVE. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:25, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - interesting life, perhaps, but no evidence that he passes our threshold of notability in any field. If his plays do well, then perhaps we will change our minds; there is no deadline here, and we have no obligation whatsoever to preserve this article so that he will have more publicity "one month before his play is staged ". Many of the keep arguments made boil down to his association with notable topics; but as we must constantly emphasize, notability is neither contagious nor inherited.
 * Delete - lack of notable coverage in reliable secondary sources.Jarhed (talk) 21:22, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * comment - I am sorry my last comments were so long. The article in question has been edited down and only presents verifiable facts.  I have added a description of Lederer's book by Kitty Carlisle Hart.  The cover of that book includes her published recommendation for it, and a photo of that cover can be seen at the end of Lederer's interview here: https://theland.wikispaces.com/Michael+Lederer  Such a strong recommendation by such an important figure must be taken into account.  The subject is not famous but is notable. The article as it reads demonstrates that.  I will end my contributions to this discussion by saying again that I agree with user Carrite above, who noted "Publications indicate sufficient achievement to merit inclusion, I think. There is enough useful biographical information here that we should tread lightly." - Soupy 123456789, 10 August 2010  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soupy123456789 (talk • contribs) 10:48, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - It should be noted that, per this article's author, Kitty Carlisle Hart was a family friend (albeit an unsourced one). See this diff  and this link.  JohnInDC (talk) 11:23, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - JohninDC is consistently denuding this article, so that others, such as those who indicated "Delete" above, are not having the chance to base their evaluations on the whole material. He cuts it down to a point where even I would agree to delete.  His is a campaign, not a serious effort to invite others to look at the supporting facts for notability and decide for themselves.  He is deciding for all. --Soupy123456789 (talk) 12:13, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - My own searches show insufficient coverage in reliable secondary sources to meet notability guidelines. --AndrewHowse (talk) 13:21, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Done the same as Andrew and came up with  nothing. The article fails already  on WP:RS whether the subject  is well known or not.--Kudpung (talk) 13:36, 10 August 2010 (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.