Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angela Workman

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. Consensus is that notability per WP:GNG is not established, independent of the subject's wishes. Sandstein 14:46, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Workman

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Editing has been added which Angela Workman does not want on the page Beauty111 (talk) 00:16, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am Angela Workman and I want this page removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beauty111 (talk • contribs) 00:24, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You created the page; see WP:G7. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 00:35, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#G7 does not apply here because the article has been substantially edited by others. Also, that the subject of an article objects to its content is decidedly not a satisfactory ground for deletion. Whether she is notable may be a different story. --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:58, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've been castigated by your editors for creating my own page, which I didn't realize I wasn't supposed to do, and now punished for wanting it removed. Can't win.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Beauty111 (talk • contribs) 03:01, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - In marginal cases there is a policy WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE which takes into account the wishes of the article's subject. I believe that the subject needs to raise a ticket by contacting info-en-q -at- wikimedia.org via email in order to prove their identity. Shritwod (talk) 14:28, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In my opinion Workman doesn't meet the notability criteria for writers (yet). Yintan 08:14, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Insufficient output and notability at this time [1]. Has additional films in the works [2], so may be sufficiently notable when The Zookeeper's Wife comes out in the spring of 2017, but perhaps not now. Could perhaps Userfy or Draftify until then. Softlavender (talk) 09:07, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is a protocol sometimes used in WP:BLPPROD where the opinion of biography subjects is taken into account when proposing the deletion of a marginally notable subject, I believe it does require a verification of identity though. The subject in this case doesn't quite seem notable yet, but that may well change in the not-so-distant-future. Shritwod (talk) 09:51, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because the subject wishes it (or WP:USERFY) but it is sad that this situation has arisen. I can't see that removing the article will do significant harm to WP. Because sometimes we cannot trust what people say about themselves (or even know with certainty who any editor really is) we have an invariable policy of reporting what has been published in "reliable sources" in preference to what the subject says is in fact the case. In some situations that leads to misunderstandings and unsatisfactory articles. Regarding balance, unfavourable opinions may sometimes be removed if they are unwarranted or they may be balanced with positive comment. See WP:UNDUE. Thincat (talk) 09:53, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Thincat:I added a positive review source to balance the negative one. The film got a mixed reception, so that should balance things out nicely. Yintan 13:55, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I was the editor responsible for accepting this article and I thought there were enough sources to pass WP:GNG I could be wrong. The article's subject has removed the negative review which was her reason for requesting deletion. Theroadislong (talk) 11:47, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Theroadislong: No, she hasn't. The citation is still there. Yintan 13:54, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Yintan: The citation is still there but the content was removed by this edit [3] . Theroadislong (talk) 15:00, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:43, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:43, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:43, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete as dependent on a forthcoming film (crystal ball). If and when such film becomes notable, then the screenwriter may also be. Until then, I would suggest that the notability is thin, and we can err on the side of deletion in this case. Collect (talk) 16:31, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the comments, thank you. I feel now that the article may remain, now that the offending passage is not quoted. For the record: there were many more credits here, with respectable references, which were edited out. What is one person's 'notable' is another person's 'obscure,' I guess, if you're unfamiliar with the film industry. Being hired to write films, by the likes of directors Roland Emmerich and David Fincher, producer Harvey Weinstein, studios like DreamWorks, Warner Bros, Focus, is extremely notable in my business, even if the films aren't yet made. We rise to the top of the heap against all the odds (especially women writers -- only 11% of working screenwriters are women, it's a very hard climb). We measure success by how often we're hired and the people who hire us -- as writers, we have no control over whether a film is made by a studio. That's not our measure. (AW)

Sadly though I seem to be the only editor who considers you anywhere near notable enough for an article, so it is certain to be deleted. as per your original request. Theroadislong (talk) 21:39, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Making your support contingent on the current content of the article is problematic, because there is nothing to prevent material that you do not personally like from being restored, or other material that you might not like from being added. If the article survives your current deletion attempt, it will be harder for you to have it deleted in the future. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:44, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. I never meant to get into a fight with Wikipedia. I did believe the site, at least for modern entries of working people in the arts, is as much a self-promotional tool as anything else. There are others in my filmmaking circles who have placed pages here, and I thought I'd do the same. After two months, I've had enough, I'm sure you have, too. Apologies and thanks. (AW) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beauty111 (talk • contribs) 22:15, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable screenwriter. The coverage is not there to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:04, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an as-yet non-notable screenwriter. The article was created by the subject and her entourage for admittedly promotional purposes and she seems determined to control the content, which is contrary to Wikipedia policy. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:23, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.