Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lally Katz
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 of the debate was keep. Ifnord 03:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable author. She had one play performed at the NY Fringe 2 years ago. The other play mentioned was not performed at the NY Fringe according to their archieves - see talk page. The writer of a single play performed 7 times in a small venue is not notable per WP:BIO. Delete Obina 00:09, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete agree with nom. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:15, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and expand. A Google search gave a number of references for this indie playwright. Added references that I found on NY Fringe Festival 2004. Removed 2003 references (unverified from Fringe, though reference found elsewhere). Write-up in Australian papers seems to establish notability. Article still a stub ... —ERcheck @ 01:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per ERcheck --James S. 02:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep and expand --M@thwiz2020 02:21, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep because she is an "International smash at just 26" Ruby 02:39, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep, she seems definitely legitimate to me as an independent playwright, impressive article in Aussie papers, agree with ERcheck, sorry nom. -- Samir Grover 09:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. "Award-winning," "number of awards" needs more backing up. Marskell 10:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep looks notable. --Terence Ong 11:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep may not be well known at this point but has been getting enough attention to be written up in a major Australian paper (or am I wrong about The Age, I'm in the US but my perception is it's a not insignificant publication). Mark K. Bilbo 12:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This is a great result shows the process works! (though it is a shame that AFD acheived more in 12 hours than months of tags did). Anyway, particular thanks to ERcheck for finding the sources and improving the article. This new article is a clear Keep .Obina 13:52, 27 January 2006 (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.