Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lizabeth Scott (criticism)

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 merge to Lizabeth Scott. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 00:53, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lizabeth Scott (criticism)[edit]

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

Most of this article isn't about her specifically or is an analysis rather than criticism. Some of it could be merged to her main article and the rest jettisoned. AFAIK, no other actor, even those much bigger, has a "criticism" article. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:09, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Main editor on subject's article seems WP:INVOLVED, and this is a pure WP:FORK, though not in the usual view of that policy we usually bring articles here for, just not understanding our guidelines. Talking to said editor and maybe merging in a few things might work for this, although with criticism (most of it from not-living people), it's subjective. Nate • (chatter) 05:19, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I intended to reedit the Lizabeth Scott (criticism) article, but will refrain as the underlining concept itself is being challenged here as illegitimate. As the "main editor" on the subject, the purpose was to reduce the size of the original Lizabeth Scott article by moving the criticism section into the filmography (Lizabeth Scott (works)), but it didn't really belong there either, so the material was split/forked off into a third article. The idea of a criticism article of an actor may be novel, but can be useful to some readers. Histories of critiques of actors' performances is certainly of interest to those interested in film, but is being thought here to be too specialized or unorthodox by some for an encyclopedia. It's impossible to predict what the readers of Wikipedia would find interesting or useful, though I understand there must be limits to an encyclopedia and it cannot be all things to all people, despite all the journalists and bloggers who used both Scott Wikipedia articles after her death (2/6/2015), often copying the articles word-for-word. But I won't challenge the proposed deletion. I'll leave it to Clarityfiend's discretion as to "Some of it could be merged to her main article and the rest jettisoned."Jamesena (talk) 17:09, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. The bloated size of Lizabeth Scott can be addressed by editorial choices. Much of the coverage of particular films, for instance, can likely be moved to the respective film articles, and additional biographical information can be condensed by relying less on newspaper articles (which by their nature reflect isolated moments in time), and more on secondary/tertiary sources like biographies or encyclopedias which synthesize and contextualize info. --Animalparty-- (talk) 20:08, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and delete - Making sure to remove at least an equivalent amount of superfluous content from the considerably over-long Lizabeth Scott, as has been suggested. Snow -I take all complaints in the form of rap battles- 22:25, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:26, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per WP:FORK. She was not so notable a person, nor so prolific an actor, that her bio requires a separate criticism article. Bearian (talk) 22:27, 2 March 2015 (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.