Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brown Holmes

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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. Narrow consensus is that this meets WP:AUTHOR #3. Please refrain from name calling in AfD discussions! (non-admin closure) gidonb (talk) 16:49, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Brown Holmes

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Brown Holmes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I created this article years ago, but now that I re-examine it, I can't find any real coverage of the guy, so WP:GNG isn't satisfied. He was the screenwriter for a couple of well-known prison films, but didn't win any awards. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:42, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

None of your sources constitute much more than passing mentions. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, several of the sources I included single out his work, so they are more than passing mentions of his name. At least one source I added isn't linked but is directly quoted. The marriage notice its photo are more than passing mentions; he is one of the two subjects of that source. If what you mean is the sources are not feature articles about Holmes, no, they are not, but it was not typical for screenwriters of the era to have much coverage like a star would, unless they were media hounds, which Holmes appears not to be. Coverage of the work of the authors of films in reviews is of relevance. I'll make this into a clippings file of a bio, sure thing! DiamondRemley39 (talk) 15:32, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
When his name only gets mentioned once or twice per source, that's pretty much the definition of passing mentions. Other than his credits, we don't know much about his activities: That's a big red flag, indicating he belongs in IMDb, not here. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:20, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The passing mention definition is not to do with the source being about the contributions of multiple elements to a whole. Nothing or next to nothing in a film review would be relevant to anyone in it if that were the case. But we can agree to disagree on the character of a significant mention. I'm not sure what other sources you'd expect to see for a journeyman writer. Writers and other studio staff were taken for granted. There may have been more coverage of his work had he kept at it into the 50s and 60s and got into television, but for whatever reason, he did not. And we're limited to the papers to which we have access. I don't have Variety at the moment, but there may be coverage there, and I'll try to head to a university over the weekend to dig something up... Red flag? What "activities" do you want to know about? The main biographically- and notability-relevant activities of interest other than his body of work for a person of his profession would be Communist activities, and I haven't found him listed as a communist anywhere. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 07:05, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The whole point is that "journeymen writers" don't qualify for articles. That's what IMDb is for. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:28, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia or IMDb is a false dilemma.
There is no policy or precedence on Wikipedia that indicates that notability inclusion guidelines discriminate against professionals... or we'd have few BLPs. We have many articles on writers who wrote for a living, on writers who only entertained and informed millions of people, on writers whose films made a little or a lot of money and on whose words some actors' stardoms soared. Of course a writer "qualifies" if a he or she has such a body of work. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 19:48, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, having a body of work doesn't suffice. As WP:BIO states, "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." He has not received "significant coverage", not by a long shot. Also, Wikipedia or IMDb is a WP:STRAWMAN you have concocted; it has no bearing on anything. I merely stated that IMDb has much lower standards as to whom to cover. Holmes satisfies its bar, but not Wikipedia's. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:10, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In conjunction with the review coverage, silly. I'm done with you here, but I have another 50 or so articles to sort through. Bye. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 21:57, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's done. Thanks. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 00:08, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:30, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Second note to closer: there are not many participants in the AfD discussion, but the article is much improved from the unsourced stub it was when it was nominated. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 00:17, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: prolific writer maybe but fails WP:AUTHOR #3 which requires not only major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work but also in addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work ... or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. I'm not seeing that in the multiple sources. Also fails WP:GNG. Springnuts (talk) 22:04, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    To counter that vote: passes WP:AUTHOR #3 because...
    a) "major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work". Co-writing many screenplays is a significant body of work. I don't know that you were arguing against this, so... just sayin'.
    b) "and also in addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work". Yes, his screenplays were the basis of the notable films.
    OR
    c) "of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". A couple dozen (give or take) film reviews that talk about the plotting, pacing, dialogue, and other writing elements, naming Holmes, are linked or cited in the article.
    No movies without the writer. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 12:41, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:12, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Beginning to lean towards keep, but that particular film is problematic for the Keep position: WP:AUTHOR #3 ...
    a) "major role in co-creating a significant... work". Selected for National Film Registry, so yes.
    b) "such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work". No - there are no notable works about the film (according to our own article).
    OR
    c) "of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". As I read the sources in I Am a Fugitive from a Chain Gang they are generally about the events and the people depicted; with mention of the movie being incidental.
Let me have a look at a few more - it seems likely that there is a pass here but I just haven't seen it yet. Springnuts (talk) 22:38, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
B. We just interpret differently. I see the screenplay as a separate work from a completed film and it seems you are looking for a book or some other piece of significant meta. C. The events and the people depicted are the film, are they not? That is what a movie review does... Talk about the characters and plot... DiamondRemley39 (talk) 01:07, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the 1931 Maltese Falcon: fails WP:AUTHOR #3 as not a significant work, no notable works about that film. Springnuts (talk) 19:35, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't call any adaptation of The Maltese Falcon "not significant" enough for its writer. Plenty of works about Hammett might have mention of Holmes; let's start with: https://www.google.com/books/edition/Dashiell_Hammett_and_the_Movies/ceWaBAAAQBAJ?hl=en and continue by looking up critical studies of Hammett, specifically the first two adaptations of TMF. And, while were at it, we can do some searches for info on the impact of I am a Fugitive on prison reform. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 01:20, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added a "Critical reception" section to the film's article, slowly adding refs. StrayBolt (talk) 02:39, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I added this detailed book to Further Reading for now: Nollen, Scott Allen (2016-09-22). The Making and Influence of I Am a Fugitive from a Chain Gang. McFarland. ISBN 978-0-7864-6677-1. StrayBolt (talk) 00:47, 10 April 2022 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Brown_Holmes&oldid=1082716824"