Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susan Cinoman


 * 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  keep.  Jujutacular  talk 00:17, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Susan Cinoman

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Autobiography of person of dubious notability, User:Susiecinoman. Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  23:28, 26 July 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: Article needs work per available sources, not deletion. Will see what I can do and report back.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep and allow continuation of cleanup and sourcing. While it would seem the author has COI and no idea of how to write an article for Wikipedia, regular editing by others solves those issues. The author's last edit on June 26, left us with this. After some early work by User:WereSpielChequers and User:Steamroller Assault it got somewhat better... and THIS is what the nom brought to AFD.  But now that AFD has forced cleanup, it has been further improved, becoming THIS to date.  While yes, there is more to do... it IS do-able, and the project benefits by its being done. It's a process...  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 04:10, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Recent edits have established notability, and the page appears to be under enough watchful eyes to dissuade any non-neutral future edits. Steamroller Assault (talk) 05:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Vanity page for non-notable hack writer. Donald Schroeder JWH018 (talk) 18:35, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * As "vanity" and "POV" have been removed and the article sourced per guideline, can you perhaps explain your opinion of how this well-received playwrite is a "hack writer?  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 00:15, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete Referring to the article subject as a "hack writer" is grossly inappropriate, but all the same I'm not seeing anything either in the article or on Google that convinces me the subject passes WP:BIO. The fact that the article has been used as self-promotion is also troubling. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  20:20, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "Self promotion"? Heck... even founder Jimmy Wales himself edits his own article.  COI has been addressed now that the author has stepped away from the article, through regular editing by others.  What began as two lengthy and unsourced paragraphs from someone unfamiliar with WP:MOS and WP:BLP, has become encyclopedic and properly sourced.  Notability to the theater world is notable enough if properly sourced. Subject meets WP:GNG and WP:BIO.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 23:27, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Whilst there is an extensive list of sources, most or all of them either are local (e.g. Wilton Bulletin) or give minimal coverage. Her films seem to be minor independent films of no notability. Her theatre career seems only marginally more notable. Vanity piece. Christopher Connor (talk) 21:26, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Coverage from New York to Florida means her work is of something more than of "local" stature... and though not all off-broadway productions receive national or international coverage, perhaps your thought is Miami Herald, Republican-American, Philadelphia Inquirer, The New York Times, and her being in Theatre World 1993-1994, The Best American Short Plays 1995-1996, et.al., constitutes only "local" coverage for a Connecticut playwright.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 23:27, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Inclusion of work in The Best American Short Plays 1995-1996 indicates notability. Sufficient career achievement to merit inclusion. Not a perfect article, obviously, but it seems like there is something worthwhile started here. Carrite (talk) 01:47, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * keep plenty of sources, not a lot of detail. But the NYT review of her work certainly kills any "local" issue and I'd say there is enough. Hobit (talk) 16:42, 6 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.