Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carroll Moore

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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:54, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Carroll Moore[edit]

[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)

An innocuous enough short bio, but I don't think Moore meets WP:NAUTHOR or WG:GNG. The Emmy nominations (not wins) don't add much weight. Searching for material under "Carroll Moore" gets swamped, unsurprisingly, while the full name "Carroll Byron Moore" is very sparsely served [1]. I don't believe this is clearing any applicable notability guidelines. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 01:32, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 01:32, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I'm not sure how multiple Emmy nominations don't add much weight, given that the very first WP:ANYBIO: "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times." If Emmys don't qualify as "well-known and significant" then I am not sure what would. At any rate, I've added two more sources to the article, one of which cites multiple Variety issues (though I haven't yet been able to check those). Gnomingstuff (talk) 05:10, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Those Emmy nominations are shared, each with at least six other writers. Also, none of the sources are about him specifically (IMDb doesn't count). I Remember Television talks a little bit about his duties on the television show Two For The Money, putting it just above passing mention. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:20, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Worth noting: WP:SIGCOV explicitly states: "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material" (emphasis mine), so "none of the sources are about him specifically" is not a valid argument. Gnomingstuff (talk)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:12, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:15, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Although a search for "Carroll Moore" "gets swamped," as the nominator said, a selective search for February 1977 coverage in newspapers.com turned up a number of obituaries for this "leading television and Broadway playwright," including in the Boston Globe, Detroit Free Press, Tampa Bay Times, and Santa Cruz Sentinel. So it's clear that coverage exists, if one knows where to look, and had Moore lived to see the internet age, it seems likely that the nominator's duckduckgo search would have put notability beyond doubt. And that's without even getting to the three Emmy nominations, which as Gnomingstuff points out, are clearly "several" nominations of a "significant award." Being shared does not diminish that, and as a writer, a shared nomination is to be expected. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:52, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Usernameunique: obituaries are generally good for establishing notability. I can't access these (I'm not going to toss my credit card details to "free trials") - could you excerpt/include some here or in the article? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:25, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Elmidae, here you go: 1; 2; 3; 4; 5. As I said, there are probably more articles, but I just looked at the timeframe that would include obituaries. By the way, if you could use newspapers.com in your day-to-day editing, you can apply for a free account at WP:The Wikipedia Library. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:16, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Frankly not sure how much these short-form obits are worth - this is the kind of notice put into the newspapers by relatives, not the independent "denkschrift" type assessing a legacy. I don't believe these help make the case. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:06, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Boston Globe obit is from the Associated Press, and the last I checked the AP was a news organization, not someone's relative. (Also, the fact that it's an AP obituary and ran in a newspaper means that it's possible -- not guaranteed, but possible -- that there is a longer version cut for space, this is very common with newspapers running wire stories. Of course there also might not be.) Gnomingstuff (talk) 23:50, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Usernameunique has ably demonstrated that further work would be productive and so our policy WP:ATD applies, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." Andrew🐉(talk) 11:50, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The Emmy nominations should be enough for WP:GNG even if shared. I mean, it's three Primetime Emmy Awards! Writing for "The Danny Kaye Show" is impressive, "Rhoda" even more impressive. Has Broadway credits too - in addition to writing for TV, he wrote at least two Broadway plays "Make a Million" and "Send Me No Flowers", the latter made into a movie with Rock Hudson and Doris Day! Surely that's more than notable enough for a playwright. I think all of this, plus a few other credits and sources and credits mentioned above, give him enough notability for an article. -- HistoricalAccountings (talk) 00:42, 25 February 2021 (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.