Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katharyn Powers

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. — JIP | Talk 15:50, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Katharyn Powers

NN-bio. Being a writer on a TV series is not notable in and of itself. If she's won an Emmy, maybe, but the article makes no such claim. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 07:58, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: The issue, for me, is whether a person is just doing her job. The usual person doing his or her job is unremarkable, and that's why Random J. Professor is out, even though he has published a book, and Jane Executive is out, despite controlling many employees' fates. "Celebrities" are slightly different, but writers of TV shows are not in that category, and there is no indication that this screenwriter is doing more than her job. Geogre 14:05, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • But we have Random J. Journalist who is just doing his job writing for Slate magazine. Kappa 17:59, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Unless there is a policy preventing this, IMO being a writer for a notable TV series, and getting to a fairly high position in a long-running series, is notable. Needs some serious clean-up, though. I'd also check to make sure that first name is actually spelled properly. 23skidoo 15:16, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: the imdb has an entry [1] which may be useful for this discussion. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 17:48, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, creative writer whose work has an audience of many millions. More notable than Cyrus Farivar. Kappa 17:59, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. A story editor is a low ranking position in the world of television writers. Anyone mid-level or above would have producer in the title. Might be arguable on the basis of viewership, but since no episode titles are claimed this is really unverifiable. The piece is cagey about the credits. Burden of proof not met. Durova 18:05, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Having worked in the industry, this just smells fishy. Any television writer normally gets a producer credit after 4 or 5 years. After 10 or 12 years they become executive producers and show creators. This writer claims 20 years experience and never got past story editor? Can't list a single episode credit? There are many many people in entertainment who pad their resumes. We don't take unverifiable musician or actor bios on faith. Writers are not a special exception. Durova 22:30, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Response. Why do you consider the information at the imdb link posted above by Paolo Liberatore "unverifiable?" Monicasdude 02:10, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Keep. Doubts resolved, thank you. Lengthy television credits and three films. To answer other objections, a credited feature film writer is called above the line and therefore significant. A television writer holds an even higher position in status and creative input. Tens of millions of people have seen this writer's work. Durova 04:11, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep. "Being a writer on a TV series is not notable in and of itself" ? Of course it is. And even there's an argument about the threshold for credits, being a writer for US network TV series for more than 20 years certainly is notable. Monicasdude 19:01, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I just don't see how this person's work on the series is important enough to warrant an article. Just because someone works on a big project or projects for a long time, doesn't mean that makes them important. Look at the credits of any move or TV series. See how long it is. I'd wager half the people on it have been in the industry for a long time and had their work viewed by many people. But we don't have articles on all of them because they are, ultimately, just people doing their job. This article does not assert that Katharyn Powers is any different. Reyk 21:23, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Wikipedia should always err on the side of keeping information rather than removing it. Bytes are infinite. Wikipedia should be inclusive, not a snobbish listing of members approved by the in crowd Jsnell 02:05, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

• • Indeed not. We should err on the side of verified information, as we are attempting to make an encyclopedia, which is a reference work. Wikipedia differs markedly from Everything2 in that it requires that its articles be on subjects appropriate for an encyclopedia and that the articles be verifiable and non-promotional, as well as in NPOV. We have a burden of proof that must be met, and we should not include anything that is doubtful. Geogre 03:29, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
    • "When in doubt, don't delete". Kappa 15:55, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Which gets an encyclopedia full of uncertainties, and yet more criticism that we are not a reliable source. While I have other criteria as well, verifiability is first and foremost. Can't verify? Delete! Denni☯ 23:21, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
        • I don't think verifiability is the question here. Kappa 23:38, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn. Citing Cyrus Farivar and other entries that have managed to slither under the notability threshold is hardly relevant: one wrong does not justify another. Dottore So 15:10, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Cyrus didn't "slither under" anything, AFD would officially be broken if it deleted his article. [2] Kappa 16:45, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes he did. 2/3rds to delete yet his nugatory promo vanity article is kept. When a 1/3 favorable vote ends up in retention, slither seems le mot juste. I don't see how [3] is germane; JW is not God and ignoring consensus in a consensus-driven community is wrong. Dottore So 17:28, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Her work is sufficiently prominent that I feel she merits an entry. If it makes anyone feel better about keeping her, some of her TV scripts have been reprinted and sold in paper copies #. -Colin Kimbrell 17:06, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

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.