Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erik Werth
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 as per consensus and no calls for deletion beyond the nominator. Non-admin closure. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Erik Werth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Not Notable Abe Froman (talk) 22:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:12, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and send to WP:CLEANUP. I was tempted to be as succint as the nominator, but did a bit of searching instead. Werth was a producer of Dateline NBC from 1995 through 1999, and a producer for MSNBC in 2004. He is producer/director/writer for The Third Jihad. Further, a cursory search finds coverage that exceeds the WP:GNG. The nom may have simply missed this. Yes, the article needs major cleanup, but that's a matter for tagging and improvement, not for AfD. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If we included Bios for every self-produced, internet released documentary creator we could rapidly make a hash of notability. For example; Does each 9/11 truther who throws a 'documentary' up on Youtube deserve a Bio page? This individual's only claim to fame is a self-released web vid. Abe Froman (talk) 11:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, WP:WAX arguments about non-existant articles do not convince. However, coverages in reliable sources that meet WP:GNG and WP:BIO do. Further, and to use your own words, if "every self-produced, internet released documentary creator" or "each 9/11 truther who throws a 'documentary' up on Youtube" had coverage that met guideline, than they too might have articles. Lastly, the individual does not have just a single claim for notability through a "self-released web vid", as the 72 minute film is not a minimal little "web vid" and the film is only the most recent [1] of events where the sunject received coverage. Again, the article deserves WP:CLEANUP, not deletion. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Lets take a look at these coverages in reliable sources. There are six Schmidt's Google link lists. Two appear to concern other "Erik Werth's' from the one under discussion. The remaining four, spread over 19 years, cover 1. an animal rights counter-protest Werth attended; 2. Men's fashion according to Werth; and 3. Two articles indicating Werth crashes holiday parties. These sources Schmidt has given us establish that Erik Werth is a well-dressed holiday party attendee who likes a steak. None of the "notable sources" listed concern "The Third Jihad." In fact, the news articles I see for "The Third Jihad,"do not mention Werth at all, except for a press release which, by itself, is an original source and does not meet notability guidelines. How exactly does Werth figure in a film that fails to mention his contribution in a notable source? How this merits a Bio page based on these desultory sources that do not mention Werth's magnum opus is beyond my ken, but give it a try using all coverages in reliable sources Schmidt mentions. I think you'll see that this is a vanity page after looking at what Google News gives back. Abe Froman (talk) 03:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, WP:WAX arguments about non-existant articles do not convince. However, coverages in reliable sources that meet WP:GNG and WP:BIO do. Further, and to use your own words, if "every self-produced, internet released documentary creator" or "each 9/11 truther who throws a 'documentary' up on Youtube" had coverage that met guideline, than they too might have articles. Lastly, the individual does not have just a single claim for notability through a "self-released web vid", as the 72 minute film is not a minimal little "web vid" and the film is only the most recent [1] of events where the sunject received coverage. Again, the article deserves WP:CLEANUP, not deletion. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Well, I read past the headlines. Werth is an activist as well as fimmaker... and explanations are searchable as to why, in the light of the Presidential campaign controversy, he originally kept his name seperate from his film project.
- Washington Times (1990) writes of Werth being a counter-protestor
- Boston Globe (1992) writes of Werth as working (then) in the Boston DA's office
- Boston Globe... and yes, as assistant Suffolk district attorney he crashed a party
- Boston Globe (1999) writes of film producer Werth being up for an Emmy
- Philadelphia Inquirer (1998) writes of Werth as an investigative journalist
- Wall Street Journal (2006) Film producer Werth quoted about fashion
- Werth's finally coming clean with being producer of The Third Jihad is verified in Movie Guide, AishNY, The American Muslim. He has coverage over 29 years for various parts of his career. ----
- Keep/Comment are we sure that all those news hits are the same Erik Werth? I'd say being nominated for an Emmy is pretty notable. Gigs (talk) 02:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep noteability seems established per improvements. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. But please clean-up, I've tweaked a bit but the whole thing deserves a bit of a rewrite. -- Banjeboi 07:59, 16 June 2009 (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.
