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 at least since there's not a lot of comments here but there's at least enough to suggest minimally better for now (NAC). SwisterTwistertalk 21:24, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No assertion of notability, no significant coverage. Local awards only, and one short theater review doesn't equal "significant coverage." There's no citation for any award he has received. MSJapan (talk) 20:12, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Absolutely fails GNG and I don't see any indication that it would pass WP:ENT as well. Except for that one review in the LATimes, there is hardly anything else. The plays produced by the suject do not seem to be notable; a short story published on an online website is not notable either. This is a clear delete. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:25, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Here's an article in the Chicago Tribune, that (briefly) dissuces him and is about film he was shooting in Chicago that is scheduled for 2016 release [1]. Romeo Miller is the lead. Plus coverage of his career form teh Chicago Tribune. [2]. E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:20, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Bear in mind that it has been established that the Chicago area is where he works. He's getting coverage, but he's still at small theatres with brief mentions as the playwright. Many of those GHits are digests of theater performances - they're not a "review of his career", and a t best say "written by John Susman." Oh, yes, and the "Live Bait Theater" - is this. The film is an indie film, and the extent of Susman's mention is his name. That's it. He's not even talked to in the article. This isn't significant coverage. All of this is namedrops and only namedrops. MSJapan (talk) 22:39, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article I cited in fact describes Susman as "a playwright who is also one of Steppenwolf Theatre’s past literary managers." And states that hw 1.) wrote the original screenplay, 2.) is co-producing it, and 3.) that ist is a feature-length film. Yes, it is an Indie film. The third hit in the Chigago Trib search is also good, I just used it to source that play (previously sourced only to the theatre that produced it). The Chicago Tribune is a major big city/regional daily (not a local paper) and the forthcoming movie has enough coverage, and cast, to make clear that it will open. I can see why it was easy to miss him in your WP:BEFORE searches - there are other Johns Sussman - but I don't think that it would be sensible to delete this article before the film opens.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:56, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
GNG is very clear that the significant coverage has to be about the subject . If we are going by GNG, this falls way off the mark. [3] This for example has exactly 2 lines about him. The articles in the Chicago tribune are routine reviews of plays which contain trivial mentions. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:37, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note on sources. I just added 4 reviews of one of his plays, it ran in Chicago. 3 full reviews in major Chicago daily papers, the other in the Wall Street Journal. More reviews, and other articles about him popped up in my Proquest news archive search - albeit not as many as appeared on the John Susman who promotes seafood in Australia. But this is enough to make this a keeper.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:18, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I had a look at the reviews and they only contain trivial mentions about him. Are you looking at WP:ENT here? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:38, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Never occurred to me. WP:AUTHOR (WP:CREATIVE]], WP:DIRECTOR is the apt category. Playwrights/authors tend to pass Criterion 3 of that category by having 3 reviews of a play or book in major media. I don't look at film directors at AFD regularly, so I'm not sure what the rule of thumb is there. I am sure that I did not scour the web looking for sources, merely found the articles I have added. I could see that there are more sources without reading the ones on the later pages of my search, or running other searches. But do note' that with a playwright, writer, (or artist,) reviews need not contain more than "trivial mentions about him." If the writer's work has been the subject of "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." He qualifies for an article. Cheers.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:44, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@E.M.Gregory: I have to echo @Lemongirl942: here, but a bit more directly. I objectively cannot find where your above reasoning is coming from given where you are saying it can be found. Here's WP:AUTHOR/DIRECTOR/CREATIVE (they're all the same guideline):
The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.
The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique.
The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.
It says nothing about "trivial mentions of the subject are OK" (which would violate GNG in the first place) or "reviews of a single work meet the criteria." Nothing in AUTHOR has been established by sources or by the article. The subject also doesn't meet WP:ENT, because that applies to performers, so whatever you're basing your claim on is not from there, either. Since it's the basis of your keep vote, I'm going to request that you find the policy you're citing. MSJapan (talk) 18:04, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AUTHOR 3. "The person has created... a significant or well-known work... (that has) been the subject of... multiple independent periodical articles or reviews."E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:25, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I see. You've elided two separate requirements into one. "The work has to be significant" is one part, and "the work has to be covered..." is another - the period is important there. It's not necessarily significant because of reviews, which is what you are trying to say. Significance is shown by coverage after the fact, precisely to avoid giving significance to coverage solely within the news cycle. Well, at least I see where that's coming from now. It also doesn't indicate that trivial mentions of the writer are OK. Also, here's an interesting twist - the first hit I got for "Nelson and Simone" was nor Susman's play, which I would have expected if it was significant. What I got was this bookpublished in 1998. So now I'm wondering if the review interest was due to the subject matter, and not the writer (of a derivative work). In any event, there's no post-run coverage on the play, so I don't think "significance of the work" has been met. MSJapan (talk) 19:07, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, I followed the standard practice her in operationalizing "The work has to be significant". How do we measure "significant"? The common practice as actually followed here with WP:AUTHORS, playwrights, and screen writers is to see whether one or more of their works has had multiple reviews in significant media outlets, plus, of course, sufficient RS to source a basic bio. I can see that reasonable people can differ on how much coverage is significant, I do not, however, think that your accusation is justified and with that you would drop the WP:BATTLEGROUND stance.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:31, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Routine reviews do not make a play significant. There has to be recurring coverage or some evidence of critical acclaim. This is sorely missing here. See below for my comment about WP:CREATIVE#3 as well. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:10, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note The sturm und drang on this page is most likely produced by the fact that this is one of a number of articles created by User talk:Foothillpark in a type of editing that understandably gets under the skin of editors who work here out of public spirited generosity. I think that these articles need to be evaluated on the merits, as was done with William Susman (also created by Foothillpark) which was brought to AFD and kept. The article needs improvement, and keeping is not a slam dunk; Susman is a minor playwright with his first full length Indie film said to be coming out later this year. I looked for sources, and added some to the page. I hope that other editors will now weigh in.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:15, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note while I do not know how the forthcoming full-length, Indie film will be received, do note that the actors are bluelinked. And that the article is now solidly sourced.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:34, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on my reading of all the above. And the upcoming film's premise is great, I will go see it. :) --doncram 04:51, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
CommentWP:CREATIVE#3 specifically states The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. Note that none of the plays the person has written are a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. I would be glad if someone can actually show me an evidence of this. Routine reviews of a play are common - almost every play gets reviewed. That doesn't mean it is significant. Significance requires something more. The indie film doesn't seem to be significant either and in any case it has not been produced. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:06, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Lemongirl, I and others who review AFDs on writers have long assumed that such work must have been the subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. exists for the purpose of defining what qualifies as a significant or well-known work or collective body of work.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:02, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, not all plays are reviewed. But note that one Susman play got reviewed in the [[Wall Street Journal (a New York and national newspaper) and that that I added a feature article on the play from the Chicago Tribune to the article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:16, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 13:07, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but the multiple reviews (bare minimum 3 detailed reviews in reliable sources) must be for the same play to even consider that it is significant. And even then, we actually needs multiple significant plays to consider notability of the playwright. I did see the WSJ review but this was the only one apart from the Chicago Tribune review (and falls short of 3). Most of his other plays have only got 1 review in the Chicago Tribune (which counts as a local sources). Most newspaper will review plays in the local area - so 1 or 2 reviews local to the place cannot be used as a proof that the play is significant. Over here, I see the subject as a minor playwright who has not yet achieved notability. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:10, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
respondThere are in fact 6 RS reviews of his 2000 play about Nelson Algren and Simone de Beauvoir now in the article, and they were there well befoere you wrote that there are only 2. It is essential to look at the article before making assertions of fact about what is in it. There is also a feature article from a major metropolitan daily about that play in the article. Plus a feature article in a major metropolitan daily that discusses him and is about an Indie film that he wrote, directed and produced that is coming out later in 2016 and that features multiple bluelinked actors. As Senator Moynihan used to say, Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts..E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:24, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Moynihan quote applies to you as well - you're getting into a bad habit of choosing only the facts that support your point of view, and ignoring all others. You haven't refuted the points made, because you're still insisting "one reviewed work = a significant body of work", but you haven't shown any lasting effects of his work. We haven't even found any of his awards. A screening announcement establishes nothing but existence. Drop the WP:BLUDGEON; it's getting tiring. MSJapan (talk) 19:00, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest that editors fresh to this page skip the sturm und drang above and simply assess the brief page on the merits.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:01, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Explanation: Why the play is not significant and neither are any of his other works The only play which has some prominence (not significance) is the play about Algren and Beauvoir. The assertion that a play is considered a significant work simply because it gets a few reviews is not true and not supported by the guideline. The guideline is clear The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. The "in addition" specifies additional conditions over significant - it does not solely define significant. (We go by the current guideline and I would suggest editors to try changing the guideline if required) If a work is really significant, it would have reviews beyond a bunch of routine reviews in the city newspapers.
Almost every single play in a major theatre gets reviewed on opening. It is also important to consider the audience of the newspaper - if the newspapers are all local to the region, it doesn't really imply that the work is significant.
If you look at the reviews, there are 5 reviews for the play (not 6) and 4 of them are limited to the same region -
4 of them are newspapers in Chicago. The Chicago Reader is a local newspaper published once a week. Daily Herald, Arlington Heights is limited to a suburb. Chicago Tribune and Chicago Sun Times are better sources, but still limited in focus. The WSJ is the only source which helps to support a claim of significance.
There have been notable plays throughout the ages and a good criteria is that they tend to be performed again - sometimes by the same company or adapted by a different one. Nothing of the sort has happened here. It happened once and it is gone. Nothing differentiates it from other plays in the past. (If this play is notable, would anyone be able to create a Wikipedia article on it?)
I also decide to have a look at this live bait theatre. And here it is :D This is actually a very small theatre which encourages works by upcoming artists.
The indie movie that Susman was involved in 2007 is a short (11 minutes long) and I can't find reliable third party coverage of it.
The upcoming movie (it's also an indie movie btw) doesn't seem to have been released to the public yet and there is no indication that it is a significant work. Having blue linked actors act in the movie doesn't mean the movie becomes notable.
At the moment, this is a minor playwright who has also worked as a screenwriter. Not one single notable work till now. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:23, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Susman is a minor playwright; minor playwrights can have articles - when they can be sourced, such articles are functional, useful to Wikipedia users. There are at least 8 printed reviews of his Nelson/Beauvoir play (Chicago Sun Times ran 2 full reviews) 8 now added to proper spot on page, there may well be more out there, there are certainly feature stories, brief descriptions in articles about broader topics, and so forth that I have not added here. I did just now add details about the development of this play, which both the Sun Times and the Chicago Tribune followed closely.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:44, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The 3 new reviews you added are in local newspapers which are part of the Chicago Tribune and one which I believe is part of the Sun Times. The specific problem here is that the diversity of sources is lacking. Attending the premiere of the play and writing a review is really common: It is when someone outside the region (like the WSJ source) takes notice, that it becomes notable. Some of the sourcing in the article btw are really trivial mentions. And all this is in the context of an individual who fails GNG. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:34, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. has not yet directed a notable film. using the GNG to override such considerations is absurd--the GNG should rather be interpreted as saying that since sort of local coverage in the city the film is being produced in does not show notability --even if it happens to be a large city with an important newspaper, they are still not reliable for notability of local events. DGG ( talk ) 14:32, 11 August 2016 (UTC) Changed to keep, see below. DGG ( talk ) 21:12, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Revisiting because I am intrigued by the decision process on minor WP:CREATIVE. checked IMDB Pro (I am blessed with powerful web access) to see if a release date was posted, and noticed that William Susman is listed as composer. Brothers? Cousins? I have no idea.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:26, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Now the deletion nominator is deleting an opposing editor's comments! And marking it as a minor edit! This is getting towards grounds to block, or to ban the deletion nominator from AFD participation. --doncram 13:13, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead, but you're going to need to explain why E.M.Gregory edited DGG's comments first, which is actually why I undid the edit. You and your buddy can move along now. MSJapan (talk) 14:49, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)There was nothing wrong with that revert btw. This edit actually refactored another editor's comments (although not maliciously). If an edit even inadvertently refactors another editor's comments, it may be reverted. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:53, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"refactored": as in: cleaned up a couple of obvious typos.18:20, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Keep. I agree with E.M. Gregory and The Steve here - there is substantial external coverage and local sources are valid when considering notability. Since he writes and directs both films and stage drama, his notability will be pulled together from a patchwork of sources and it shouldn't be a big concern that he doesn't fit a subject-specific guideline. Deryck C. 16:12, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I'm probably just passing the buck on a difficult close, but I'm going to let this run another week in the hope some consensus emerges. -- RoySmith(talk) 21:21, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith(talk) 21:21, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Game Day Film Score Session at DF, July 28, 2016, by Karli Helm [11] shows that work on forthcoming film still going forward. also, I just bluelinked the theatre company - notable for premiering new plays - where one of his early plays was produced.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:27, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
New sources One of the actors in Game Day is the venerable Fyvush Finkel. Finkel just passed away. So, searches on "Game Day" now produce stories like this one form Paris: Décès de l'acteur Fyvush Finkel, discussing the fact that Game Day is Finkel's last movie role, Le dernier film dans lequel il a tourné, Game Day de John Susman. fin.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:53, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
One word mention of a film doesn't mean it is notable. The subject clearly fails GNG. And I do not see any demonstration that the subject's productions are notable. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:18, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The play will very clearly be notable, for there are certain to be more stories and therefore so will he. WP:CRYSTAL does not prohibit anticipating a little. DGG ( talk ) 00:37, 27 August 2016 (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.