Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philip Eisenberg

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 Delete. Carlossuarez46 00:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Philip Eisenberg

Philip Eisenberg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Delete. Subject lacks notability. We have articles on creative artists but AFAIK we don't have any other articles on invisible (opera and theatre world) technicians such as stage managers, assistant conductors etc. Moreover the article doesn't have any references which might establish notability on special grounds. -- Kleinzach 03:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. While I agree the article lacks a proper notability assessment, my previous poking around has lead me to believe this might be one of few such notable persons, in doubt, I'm err-ing on the inclusion side, since this does not obviously fit any other deletion criterion. Circeus 03:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. IMO "might be notable" isn't really enough. Several people have previously tried to prove Eisenberg's importance but nobody has come up with anything, while the creator of the article hasn't responded. -- Kleinzach 04:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment One cannot resist labeling this the Eisenberg Uncertainty Principle. --Dhartung | Talk 08:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. I don't see how a prompter, no matter how good, can be notable. Clarityfiend 03:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Seems to be like a fluffer in porn - necessary, but not notable. MarkBul 05:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Accomplishment is not notability. There are many more accomplished people in the world than there will ever be notable ones. Nor is notability inherited: you can't get it from the stuff you work on, unless you had a substantial participation (as with an author, for example). --Dhartung | Talk 08:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I have to agree, this occupation may be more difficult than we credit, but is essentially non-notable. We have to consider the possibility that the individual spends the entire course of an opera doing absolutely nothing, and I can't accept that that could lead to notability. Kind of like a fireman waiting for something important to burn. Accounting4Taste 18:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Actually not so. The opera prompter, unlike the drama prompter (who speaks when someone forgets their lines), anticipates the singer, whispering the line in advance, rather as the conductor leads the orchestra. -- Kleinzach 01:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep the people at the top of every profession is notable; I would think it obvious from the positions that he is at the top, but this does need some references.DGG (talk) 23:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. The people at the top of Mr Eisenberg's profession are conductors - many of whom are indeed notable. Prompters and assistant conductors etc. by definition have not risen to the top. -- Kleinzach 01:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete On top of the notablity issue, there are no references cited whatsoever to support the claims in the article. Any eventual verifiable material could be merged with Prompter, giving Eisenberg as an example Voceditenore 07:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete the referencing problem is a minor WP:BLP issue and a major WP:BIO issue. Burntsauce 18:04, 26 September 2007 (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.