Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anita Short Metz Grossman

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 no consensus. Bishonen | talk 20:24, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anita Short Metz Grossman[edit]

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

Not notable per WP:GNG. It seems she is best known for her role in music, but does not meet criteria for WP:MUSICBIO. –CaroleHenson (talk) 02:57, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:51, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:51, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She was mentioned by name during the House Unamerican Activities Committee hearings. Ref added. I see many notable activities in the text, and saw several mentions in Google Books under "Anita MetZ Grossman". meets basic WP:GNG.198.58.162.200 (talk) 01:01, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability clearly established and WP:GNG clearly met. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:10, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. per others. Article needs work and cleanup, but notability met. Montanabw^(talk) 02:46, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment She was mentioned by name in the Hearings text mentioned above, but her name appears in only two places in that text: the index on page 890, and as part of a question on page 864 towards the bottom of the page. The relevant section on page 864 consists of Mr. Arens asking Mr. Saidenberg, "Do you know a person by the name of Anita Short Metz?", and after conferring with his counsel, Mr. Saidenberg said "No." Clearly the index mention does not establish notability and I think that the question mention, by itself, does not help to establish notability either. Ca2james (talk) 04:35, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question - I am totally fine with her being considered "notable", but aside from the mention of the House Unamerican Activities Committee hearings, which seems to be a non-issue, I am not hearing a reason why she is considered notable. What in her career makes her notable?–CaroleHenson (talk) 13:52, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see you removed that citation, and I have restored it. It's part of her story. The other refs tend to establish notability.198.58.162.200 (talk) 16:39, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per the comment above, " "Do you know a person by the name of Anita Short Metz?", and after conferring with his counsel, Mr. Saidenberg said "No." Clearly the index mention does not establish notability and I think that the question mention, by itself, does not help to establish notability either." - this is not encyclopedic content and does not establish notability. For now, I won't remove the citation.–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:04, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteThe HUAC mentioned a large number of people, many of whom were not notable. I really don't see anything in her career that had national scope or had a significant impact on the arts. Rogermx (talk) 21:56, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm stunned by the "keep" votes. What am I missing? All I am seeing are references that are apparently local press mentions over a lifetime, many of them trivial, and a book that she self-published. This appears to be mostly original research by a SPA author. Surprised, too, editors are arguing "keep" based on being mentioned in a HUAC report. Is merely the accusation of being a communist a "notable" achievement? Anyway, I only came here because of the BANDS AND MUSICIANS criteria, which the subject clearly does not meet. ShelbyMarion (talk) 11:46, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 15:55, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 02:34, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 17 April 2017 (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.