Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Connie Clausen

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 Keep (non-admin closure)——Ryan | t • c 12:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Connie Clausen

Connie Clausen (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Non-notable entertainment hack who was a jack of all trades without becoming notable in any of them. Fails WP:BIO, WP:N, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:BK, WP:COI, WP:Single-purpose account, and probably a few more guidelines we could throw at it. Run-of-the-mill circus performers and literary agents are inherently non-notable, and she was both of these things. Qworty (talk) 04:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep, important enough to get an article-length obit in the New York Times. What evidence is there of a COI, or even a single-purpose account? Zagalejo^^^ 04:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. Every literary agent who dies in New York gets written up in the Times. It's nothing more than a professional courtesy, since New York is the center of the publishing industry, so the obit really doesn't mean anything--except, of course, for the fact that it highlights the reality that this woman had to die before the Times deigned to publish an article about her. Qworty (talk) 04:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Nope! Her book was reviwed in the Times (and several other papers) in 1961. [1]. Zagalejo^^^ 04:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
      • That doesn't satisfy WP:BK. The title in question wasn't culturally significant or controversial. Qworty (talk) 04:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
        • There are at least five separate reviews, which would go toward satisfying the first criteria of WP:BK. (And it's likely that there are many other reviews in publications that aren't electronically archived back to the 1960s.) Zagalejo^^^ 04:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Not only do we have the NY Times obit, but we also have an apparently non-trivial mention in the O'Boyle book. In my opinion, that's enough to satisfy WP:BIO. Scog (talk) 13:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep more RS available too. Run-of-the-mill are indeed notable if they're received RS coverage of their work. Since when does a book need to be 'culturally significant' or 'controversial' to pass notability? _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 13:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Connie Clausen was more than a "run of the mill circus performer and literary agent". Run of the mill circus performers don't publish memoirs that are considered authorative on the 20th Century circus experience and are used as a teaching reference by the Ringling Musuem and cited in works such as the biography of the Russian choreographer Balanchine. And she was a top New York literary agent responsible for many bestsellers of the 1970's, 80's and 90's. Sangroncito (talk) 20:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep When I did the initial editing-there was lots of information about Connie Clausen that made her notable.Thank you-RFD (talk) 19:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Well referenced article. RSs imply notability. Gimme danger (talk) 21:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - I added some refs and stuff. In researching her, it was clear that she has an interesting and varied history, and had received extensive coverage in reliable sources. As mentioned by TravellingCari and Zagalejo, there were lots of reviews of her book published back in the early 60's, as well as quite a few references before that to her television and entertainment career. The O'Boyle book Scog mentions has a full entry on her as well. Actually, for me the most interesting reference was in Tait's book, as she was looking at how Clausen described her treatment in the circus in her memoirs. Overall, she seems like a good fit for Wikipedia. :) - Bilby (talk) 22:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
• Snow Keep The version even at the time of nomination had a New York Times full obituary as the reference. This is considered unquestioned evidence of notability (not all papers, of course, but the NYT and the London Times due to their reputation for selectivity--reckless assertion about covering every literary agent.) DGG (talk) 18:40, 23 May 2008 (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.