Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Abagnalo

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 vote to Draft:George Abagnalo. The article shouldn't be moved back into mainspace unless it can pass an AfC review. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 16:11, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

George Abagnalo[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)

NN. We read that he "is a writer and actor". As a writer, he doesn't seem to meet WP:AUTHOR. As an actor, he doesn't seem to meet WP:NACTOR. And more generally he doesn't seem to meet the occupation-nonspecific criteria of WP:PERSON either. Hoary (talk) 22:26, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Authors. Shellwood (talk) 22:28, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Working with Andy Warhol at the Factory is not enough for a standalone article. No significant coverage. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:23, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion of notability and no evidence of notability. -Arch dude (talk) 02:15, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is my first time responding to a delete suggestion so forgive me if format not correct. I would recommend this article stay up according to the following from the guidelines: "The general inclusion threshold is whether the subject is notable enough for at least two people to have written something substantive (more than just a mention) about that subject that has been published in a reliable source." George Abagnalo is a well known figure in the Warhol community and is referenced in Warhol biographies as well as books about the New York scene in the 1960s and 1970s. (Books that mention him include: Superstar in a Housedress: The Life and Legend of Jackie Curtis; Warhol in Ten Takes; High on Rebellion: Inside the Underground at Max's Kansas City); Factory Made: Warhol in the Sixties).

He appeared in documentary "Beautiful Darling" about Candy Darling. (See imdb).

As the first critic to recognize the significance of Night of the Living Dead, he is mentioned in many books about Night of the Living Dead as well as books about cult movies and horror movies. A few titles include: Night of the Living Dead by Joe Kane; Night of the Living Dead by Ben Hervey; Cult Midnight Movies by Danny Peary; Slimetime: A Guide to Sleazy, Mindless Movies)

Maybe the author just needs to provide more citations? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Efbrab (talk • contribs) 14:15, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

After reading comments, I’m seeing that maybe I didn’t do a good enough job explaining the subject’s notability. I want to go back to revise it to explain things better. Would it help to add more citations (for example, reviews of the movie Bad) demonstrating that this is a well known work? Virginia G Nelson (talk) 17:40, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Virginia G Nelson:No. We already know the movie is notable: it has an article. To keep an article on Abagnalo, you need to document his notability, not just the notability of his works. Please carefully re-read WP:AUTHOR, WP:NACTOR, and WP:PERSON. To oversimplify, you need to find at least two articles in major newpapers about Abagnalo: more than a passing mention. If you cannot do that, then try to meet one of the criteria listed in WP:AUTHOR or WP:NACTOR. -Arch dude (talk) 18:46, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you-- I'm focusing on meeting the criteria for Creative Professionals. Virginia G Nelson (talk) 20:31, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Virginia G Nelson For those criteria, he needs to have been the sole creator of 2+ works that are notable in their own right (eg by WP:NBOOK or WP:NFILM). The suggestion by @Efbrab might give you some pointers too (if there are several paragraphs devoted to him in books on Night of the Living Dead, not just a passing mention of him, those will be useful to show notability under the basic WP:GNG guidelines; the other books might be useful too on the same grounds). I'm sorry you now have a seven-day deadline to do this work. I suggest submitting future articles through Articles for Creation until you're sure you have a decent handle on how notability guidelines work. There, no one will delete your article outright unless you don't edit it at all for six months. -- asilvering (talk) asilvering (talk) 03:15, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not Delete I have already made a few points above but wanted to add my vote after reading more of the guidelines. It seems to me that the definitions of specific categories may not be necessary here as Abagnalo falls under "general notability" (GNG): He has received significant coverage in several reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Efbrab (talk) 05:00, 4 July 2022 (UTC)Efbrab[reply]
@Efbrab Indeed, if someone passes WP:GNG, then we don't need to look at the subject-specific guidelines. Can you point at which specific sources meet these criteria? (It's easiest for other editors trying to assess whether they agree with you if you can link to two to four sources that you think fulfil this requirement the best. Have a look at the short essay at WP:THREE for reasons/tips.) -- asilvering (talk) 05:00, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here are a few: Superstar in a Housedress: The Life and Legend of Jackie Curtis;

Warhol in Ten Takes;

High on Rebellion: Inside the Underground at Max's Kansas City);

Factory Made: Warhol in the Sixties).

He appeared in documentary "Beautiful Darling" about Candy Darling. (See imdb).

Night of the Living Dead by Joe Kane; Night of the Living Dead by Ben Hervey;

Cult Midnight Movies by Danny Peary;

Slimetime: A Guide to Sleazy, Mindless Movies).

https://medium.com/@DavidA.Punch/night-of-the-living-dead-horrors-of-reality-manifested-in-the-flesh-46722bb15e8a Efbrab (talk) 12:14, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: See note below momentarily. Short version: per Talk
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:14, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Post-first close comment from @Virginia G Nelson: re-posted from here with formatting by Star Mississippi:
- I'm the creator of the George Abagnalo post that was deleted. I’m hoping you can provide some clarification and/or might be willing to reconsider. Please don’t think I’m being argumentative. As someone who is fairly new to Wikipedia, I’m generally confused about why he would not qualify and am concerned that I did not do a good enough job of documenting his notability. I thought he qualified under “author” and “creative professional” as a person "known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique” because he was the first critic to appreciate the artistic value of The Night of The Living Dead and widely referenced as pivotal in its cult status today and he wrote the first American novel on privileged sexual abuse of patients within health care settings. The book was extremely ahead of its time published years before the USA gymnastics doctor was outed.

Also under “creative professional” it requires that "the person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series)”

Abagnalo co-created Andy Warhol’s last film, Andy Warhol’s Bad, which is a well-known work and the subject of multiple independent reviews and as a novelist he created a “significant” groundbreaking novel that is the subject of multiple independent reviews. Here are some sources that I believe prove this point:

The Letter, Louisville, Kentucky, April 2002. p. 35 “Journey Into Sexual Darkness” by Bronson Majors (Review)

Excerpt: "’Boy’ is unabashedly literate...The author's highly refined literary skills help raise this story from the gutter into which it could have crawled...into the lofty reaches of fine literature...It's the kind of dark novel Dostoevsky or Conrad could have written had they been free in their culture and age to write of sexual matters.”

Seattle Gay News, July 5, 2002 “Boy On A Pony Will Shock And Intrigue You” by Robert Geller (Review)

Excerpt: “Abagnalo's early years at the Warhol factory appear to have influenced his artistic bent. There is real bite to his dialogue and a healthy inclination to shock. Boy on a Pony manages to take you where you may not even want to go and still has you begging for more.”

Wayves, Nova Scotia, Canada, November 2001 “A Compelling Read About the Bizarre World of Medical S&M” by Ralph Higgins (Review)

Excerpt: “An unsettling journey during which we must re-examine our ideas about dignity, abuse of power and our tendency to invest figures in professional positions with moral authority...A compelling story which will be remembered long after the final page is finished.”

Filmcritica Italy, Number 354, April 1985, pp. 243 - 245 “La Factory tra cinema, moda, e televisione” conversazione a cura di Gianfranco Graziani

Writer Gianfranco Graziani discusses the Factory and differences between Andy Warhol and Paul Morrissey with Jackie Curtis, George Abagnalo, and Taylor Mead.

- Would including these sources/reviews help to keep the article up? Or is there something else I’m missing? I apologize for the long winded response, I just want to understand what I need to meet the guidelines in the case of this article and for the future. Virginia G Nelson (talk) 16:40, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Closing admin comment relisted per request from @Asilvering: here: User_talk:Star_Mississippi#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/George_Abagnalo. While I think the consensus was to delete, I'm all for giving new editors time to understand process. AfC-contingent draftification would also be fine with me, but I'm not going to formally !vote as a prior closer. Star Mississippi 01:20, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused why consensus is relevant. I read in the guidelines that Wiki is not a democracy where the most votes win. But rather decisions should be based on the criteria. I'm not trying to start a fight. I'm really honestly wondering. Efbrab (talk) 12:07, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
and consensus is formed from an assessment of the criteria. Otherwise how do you get to a decision? Star Mississippi 13:16, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for responding. I get that but if there is an editor responsible for the decision, it's based on their judgment of the guidelines not the most votes. Otherwise people could gang up and prevent things from being approved.

In this case, I still haven't seen anyone explain why Abagnalo does not meet the criteria. He co-wrote a film that someone above already conceded is a significant part of the canon. And that's just one thing.

I feel like part of the issue here is procedural. The poster is a first-timer and that seems to have diverted some attention from the merits. Good points have been made on the process -- I've learned from it - but at this point I'm eager to hear the merits. Efbrab (talk) 13:27, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Right. I made a judgement. @Asilvering came to me to ask whether I would reconsider it, and I did. They're now working with the creator to see whether it could be improved, whether that's here or as a draft. If you believe it should be kept, I'm not sure I'm following what your concern is with the current course of action. Star Mississippi 14:03, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No concern at all with it being reopened! I was happy to see that. I just have been hoping to hear specifically why it's not meeting the criteria. Efbrab (talk) 16:31, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Efbrab, the criteria you are talking about state The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. While it may look like he satisfies this according to a particular literal reading of this guideline, there are several problems with applying this to the movie Abagnalo co-wrote. For one, it's a film known for being an Andy Warhol film, not for being written by George Abagnalo, who was, say, a one-time filmwriter who wrote one absolutely brilliant film and then disappeared from the industry. For another, Abagnalo only co-wrote it, rather than having sole author credits. (And remember that these are general criteria for all kinds of creative work - editors are going to be more convinced by a "co-creator" argument for notability in a creative field that doesn't typically have credited co-creators.) Not to mention, it's the only notable film he ever (co-)wrote. It is very difficult to argue that Abagnalo is notable as a screenwriter. For an article on a screenwriter who is known for co-writing a significant film, take Herman J. Mankiewicz as an example. -- asilvering (talk) 17:26, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the confusion here is what it means to be an Andy Warhol film. Warhol's name is in the title "Andy Warhol's Bad" but it is very much a film by Abagnalo and his co-creator. All of Warhol's films were highly collaborative projects. This particular one was a work by Abagnalo and the co-writer. They are the credited screenwriters of a project produced under the auspices of the factory.

As for whether he did other films, I don't see where that is required in the guidelines. It specifically says that a single significant work is sufficient: "created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work".

As for him being a co-creator, the cited guideline clearly says that is sufficient.

Is Abagnalo as significant as Herman Mankiewicz? No, of course not. But that is not what the guidelines require.

And then there is his novel, and myriad other accomplishments already mentioned. Efbrab (talk) 18:58, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, that is not the confusion here. -- asilvering (talk) 19:30, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify (with the condition that the article go through the AfC process). Thanks to Star Mississippi for relisting. For context and disclosure, this article was a draft at AfC; as a reviewer, I declined that draft for unclear notability. The article creator then copy-pasted it to their sandbox and moved it to mainspace, avoiding AfC, and it was almost immediately tagged for notability and then put up for AfD. I do not believe that any of the actions taken about the article (the decline, the tagging, the AfD nom, or the close) were done in error. However, I want to argue for draftify (with the condition that it go through AfC!) on WP:IAR grounds: I would rather see a new editor who is confused about notability guidelines learn how they work (and hopefully get an article published) than have their efforts deleted (and leave in frustration). There are enough attempts at notability claims in the article that I think it is possible that Abagnalo meets notability guidelines; I cannot say that I feel compelled to do the digging and article-improving on an article I declined that was copy-pasted to mainspace, but I'm happy to help shepherd it through AfC if its creator is willing to work through the process. If ultimately the article is rejected for lack of notability, well, fine. Given that we have a nominator and two !voters who agree, that may well be the outcome. But I'd like to give the article creator a second chance to try to prove notability, somewhere less adversarial than AfD. @Virginia G Nelson:, if you would be interested in this possibility, please do say so here. -- asilvering (talk) 02:18, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Asilvering I'm interested in this possibility; what would the next step be? Virginia G Nelson (talk) 21:39, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Virginia G Nelson For now, we wait for this AfD to be closed; the result of that close is up to the closing admin, who will base their decision on their understanding of wikipedia's policies and their read of the consensus (or lack of consensus) on this page. In the meantime, I'll give you some suggestions/questions about the sources for the article (on your talk page, so it doesn't clutter this AfD or get deleted if that's ultimately what happens to this article). -- asilvering (talk) 01:21, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

* New Secondary Source information: Blake Gopnik's recent biography of Warhol cites Abagnalo extensively about life in the factory - 14 times that I counted. Gopnik also offers a detailed discussion establishing Abagnalo's significant contribution to Bad: states that Bad was Abagnalo's idea (both plot and synopsis) and that he wrote the script with co-writer Hacket's job honing the dialogue. It describes Bad as "the most ambitious project ever to bear Warhol's name." And, unlike most Warhol films, this one had "an actual script." It also discusses Abagnalo joining the Factory as a teenager and Warhol being impressed with his knowledge of film. (Gopnik. Warhol. Ecco, a division of Harper Collins 2020). Efbrab (talk) 18:38, 11 July 2022 (UTC)Efbrab[reply]