Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carl Erickson (screenwriter)

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. ✗plicit 13:15, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Erickson (screenwriter)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This article lacks any reliable sources, and as far as I can tell has never had any. My search for information turned up no sources on this person. Wikipedia should not be built on sources like IMDb which we have ruled to be unreliable. John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:55, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"My search for information turned up no sources on this person". Did you follow Wikipedia procedure and complete a BEFORE search? When I did simply by clicking the links, I found the sources I added to the article. I'm sure I'd get more if I added information like the names of his coworkers (Curtiz, Borzage), wife, employer to a search. So it looks like you didn't complete the BEFORE or you didn't look at the sources that came up--more than I added, but the way, as some were redundant. Either way, this is a dysfunctional approach to AfD. --DiamondRemley39 (talk) 02:40, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- - I did multiple searches in google, google books. google news archive, which are the searches that before actually recomends.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:51, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 March 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:10, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:22, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, California, and Connecticut. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:24, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
speedy keep meets notability guidelines and we don't nominate because things are sourced to IMDb... And when IMDb is clearly quoting something in the bio... Demonstrating sources exist... ::Screams:: Bad nomination etiquette and I'll leave a message on nominator's talk page. I have a life and have essentially given up WP because of this bologna, but I'll spare a few minutes for a troubled soul who has given me so much joy. Big fat eyeroll, though! DiamondRemley39 (talk) 01:56, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source 1 that goes into his work on a particular film, but that I can't view or check out through Internet Archive/Open Library to meaningfully quote in the article. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 02:17, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Source 2 from a book on Curtiz and ditto. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 02:43, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the excellent expansion work by DiamondRemley39 and another case of Lambert not doing a WP:BEFORE. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:44, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The fact of the matter is that this article existed for over 10 years sourced to nothing except IMDb. I did a search for sources. The fact that I am being attacked for not finding any, when no other editor bothered to place any on the article for over 10 years seems to be putting the weight too much on people who try and do reasonable actions to improve articles on Wikipedia. We have held that IMDb is unreliable and cannot be used as a source. I did a reasonable search for information and came up with nothing that indicated there was some. The fact of the matter is that this article lacked any reliable source at all when I found it and had existed on Wikipedia for 10 years. That is far longer than we should tolerate articles lacking reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:59, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John, your argument to delete is being countered and your statement you didn't find anything in a search when I found things just by clicking the "find sources" links are what we have addressed. No one has attacked you. In good faith I recommend you strike that particular word and consider replacing it with another in case someone (not me) makes a beef about it later. You started an AfD and you know how AfDs go. Your work will be critiqued. This is the way of things. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 14:28, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw people were able to find additional sources that now show notability. This was not easily evident when found and the article had existed for an excessive amount of time with no reliable sources at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:49, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for withdrawing, John. I appreciate it. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 14:28, 16 March 2022 (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.