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. Based on comments after the relist and following the rewrite of the article. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:02, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Linda Seger[edit]

Linda Seger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to fail ANYBIO. Current sources are imdb, publisher or personal webpages and some lesser-known websites which also do not seem to have editorial control. A search gives several hits, but some are their own publications and I doubt any other sources are reliable (does not seem to have editorial control). I am not sure whether they can pass WP:AUTHOR#4d (their work being represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums) or meet other criteria, given that they have identifiers in a few national libraries. 94rain ^Talk 14:14, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 14:14, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 14:14, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. 24.151.50.175 (talk) 17:01, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Is Script WP:RS (not a rhetorical question)? If so, The Great Linda Seger Has Done It Again! looks like WP:SIGCOV when combined with Kirkus and Publisher's Weekly. 24.151.50.175 (talk) 16:53, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  It seems that Script is a close affiliate of Writer's Digest, which seems legitimate. Therefore, keep by the argument for WP:SIGCOV above. Vahurzpu (talk) 04:39, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not convinced that Scriptmag is reliable simply by saying it is a close affiliate of Writer's Digest. I may withdraw the nomination (if no one !vote delete) if there's more evidence (like editorial control?) showing they are reliable. Before I nominated the article for deletion, an anonymous user said in the article that "it's just a blog of different people, the Script Magazine is long dead". Other two sources mainly comment on her book and I do not think they provide WP:SIGCOV.--94rain ^Talk 13:08, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per sources above and WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:12, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:24, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment "The Great Linda Seger Has Done It Again!" is not an article by a (defunct) Script magazine, but by some woman, who paid to post it to a blog-like website to promote her consulting business, similar to Seger's. This article doesn't even provide original content, but quotes Seger. Just like all other sources that praise her.

"Script consulting" means not what people believe, but merely reading a screenplay, and provide some notes. Seger lures screenwriters to pay insane fees by claiming to be a Hollywood expert (check her website). Yet, she doesn't even live there. Nor did she ever worked on anything Hollywood.

Two films are mentioned as proof. Dead Alive, on which she merely provided notes (dozens of people may do this for a script, some for free, others for a fee), is a NZ film. Universal Soldier is indie, plus Seger is credited as a Project Consultant, which means either a person, doing some minor financial stuff, or a spiritual advisor (usually this credit is given to a lover).

Her Wikipedia page is used as a proof that she is really a Hollywood expert, not a scam. If Wiki mentions her then she's for real. That is how I was referred to it.

Resume: all provided sources quote Seger herself, to provide credibility to her extremely overpriced business practice. Ideaorigin (talk) 23:00, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"by some woman, who paid to post it"? Is there any evidence?--94rain ^Talk 04:37, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's obvious, because this article promotes two businesses, providing no original content, only quotes from Seger's book, and is full of fakes.

"the industry’s matriarch — who essentially created the job of script consultant three decades ago" - There is no "script consultant" job in Hollywood. Approved credits for a person, who worked on a script, are "writer" and "story by". All her credits are for indie films that follow no rules. She's not the first to provide script notes, which is what she does. The term matriarch is not used in a business setting.

"Dr. Seger" - Unaccredited ThD (Graduate Theological Union didn't have accreditation for a ThD) shouldn't be used to provide a "Dr." credibility, especially in screenwriting.

"No screenwriter’s bookshelf is complete without at least one book by Dr. Linda Seger. That’s a given." - Given by whom?

"Thirty years of expertise" - As a self-employed script reader, nothing more.

"teaching in 30 countries on six continents" - False, she has never been a teacher, only a speaker.

"consulting on a couple thousand screenplays" - Reading scripts, and providing notes, is called a script reader, not a consultant.

"which have resulted in 40 produced films and 35 television episodes" - No reason to believe Seger's notes caused this.

"Check out her webinars, tutorials and online classes. Connect with Heather on Twitter: @HeatherJHale, Facebook and LinkedIn." - Blatant self-promotion. Not something you can see in an editorial piece.

Anyway, it is posted not in a magazine, but on a website.

https://scriptmag.com/page/advertise

ScriptMag.com and the Script Weekly e-newsletter

If a website is owned by a reputable company, it doesn't mean all of its contents are reputable. This article is endorsed by some Heather Hale only. Ideaorigin (talk) 00:58, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Just read a tab, that was left while googling Seger's credentials:

http://marchingthroughculpeper.com/meet-linda-seger/

OMFG... This scammer preys on very poor souls. And Wikipedia helps her. Ideaorigin (talk) 08:56, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep as there's a case for WP:NAUTHOR C3 with reviews like the one at Script, Kirkus, Publisher's Weekly, with some support from GNG (newpapers seem to call her when they someone to talk about script-fixing). Some further references could be added to the article. Comment that Ideaorigin's only edits are at this AfD. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:30, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How can this be a keep, if her Wiki article is not about her as a book writer, but as a "Linda Seger is a screenwriting instructor and screenplay consultant", with both of these statements being false?

There is no such thing in Hollywood, as a script fixing by script consultants. If somebody works on a script, he is called a writer, not a consultant. Provide links to newspapers, that claim otherwise.

You really don't understand, that you defend a scammer? Ideaorigin (talk) 10:00, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep calm and do not say a living person is a scammer without sources proving it. Yet your arguments seem like own judgement without proof. --94rain ^Talk 14:33, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If a person charges 10+ times the market rates for script notes by lying - this is called a scam.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scam_(disambiguation)

A scam or confidence trick is an attempt to defraud a person or group by gaining their confidence.

Calling a person a fraud is not right (or legal) without a criminal charge, but scam is a different term.

I pointed to her lies:

Doctor title. False claim. She has a religious "doctorate" title, but uses it as a PhD in Drama.

Teacher. False.

Works in Hollywood. No single proof that she ever did this. No wonder almost all of her victims are outside the US, where people don't find it laughable, that a person, living in Colorado, claims to work in Hollywood.

Works as a script consultant in Hollywood. There is no such position. She has never described, what she did for whom. It's always "some producer", "some actor", "some client".

I don't see a need to proof that something doesn't exist. References on her page should proof that all claims are true. But all references quote her own words only. Everything in Google, actually.

Except for some spitting from industry professionals, such as famous screenwriters John August and Craig Mazin, who publically called her a scam:

https://johnaugust.com/2011/scriptnotes-ep-15-on-screenwriting-gurus-transcript

https://johnaugust.com/2010/those-who-cant-write-teach-seminars

The number of published books makes some believe her, yet her books are not even cited in news sections of newspapers, let alone being reviewed.

At least one of her screenwriting books (others probably too, judging by the reviews) is a total crap. A collection of quotes from 50+ years old manuals. And such a bad collection that she happens to contradict what real teachers (e.g. USC's David Howard, Aaron Sorkin) say.

I'm trully puzzled, why Wikipedia editors fail to see that she's a scam, and Wikipedia helps her perpretrate it. Wikipedia is the only (!) source providing credibility to her.

Compare it to references for a real teacher and his book:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lew_Hunter Ideaorigin (talk) 21:46, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, her works have reviews, but are the works themselves significant or well-known? According to WP:NAUTHOR C3, first their works have to be significant or well-known. --94rain ^Talk 14:33, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think they are significant and/or well-known. I found several college film classes that use the script-writing book as a textbook or as recommended reading, for example. Apparently Ron Howard recommends it (with two other books) in his masterclass, though I haven't been able to actually watch that. (See this blog for a review of that.) And the reviews themselves are signs of significance. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 02:01, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Noticing that this has been open a week, I would suggest to admins looking to close that it would be worthwhile to relist for additional clarity. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 00:13, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I've rewritten the article, focusing more on her books. Her books get reviewed and seem to be taken seriously by some. I've also linked a few more sources that I couldn't access on the article's talk page; it's possible more could be written about her other work from these. To address some comments above: I looked at the Script Mag source, and I don't see serious concerns; anyway, I don't believe that the case for notability hangs on that in any essential way. The negative review of her seminars by Jonny Elwyn actually contributes to GNG. IMDB is partly- or mostly-reliable for film credits, and I counted 30 films that looked like they'd had US theatrical releases (not including one where she's listed as uncredited). I added an education section, including her theology doctorate. @94rain:, perhaps you'd look at my edit and see if you have major concerns that I haven't addressed. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 18:35, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Now Wikipedia provides even more credibility to this scammer - more content. And the content is false. "She is best-known for her books on screenwriting" - yet, they are not even mentioned by newspapers. Publisher's Weekly (reviews anything in circulation) trashed her book. Kirkus (provides paid review services) trashed it too. "She also works as a script consultant" - she doesn't have such job, only once in a while gets an order for script notes for ridiculous $750. The reference is for her own (scam) website. "ThD in Drama and Theology" - it's not a research or professional doctorate degree, but a religious title given for religious merit, misleading to reference it. IMDB credits for Indie movies mean nothing. I can get tons of such credits, even producer credits, but this wouldn't warrant an article about me. This article should be deleted, not edited. Seger is notable only as a scammer. Ideaorigin (talk) 23:49, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ideaorigin: you appear to have a strong interest in this subject. Do you have a connection with Seger? Russ Woodroofe (talk) 16:40, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • God forbid. I'm a screenwriter, nothing more. Ideaorigin (talk) 23:28, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Some of the book arepublished by regular publishers ( for example "The art of adaptation : turning fact and fiction into film" by Henry Holt , and in almost 400 Worldcat libraries; "The Collaborative Art of Filmmaking : From Script to Screen.". Routledge, and now in its 3rd edition; ) , and many have been translated into mutliple languages. The notability is as an author, not a screenwriting advisor. We're not abusiness review site,, so some of the problems mentioned above arei rrelevant. DGG ( talk ) 10:28, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Will you vote keep, if I create a Wiki article about myself, as a book author (I've got a book published, that has no value in 2019), plus stating that I work as a president's advisor, quoting my website? You should at least explain, why no newspapers and magazines mention books of a notable author. Without this I don't see her meeting notability requirements. Ideaorigin (talk) 05:52, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• @Russ Woodroofe: Thanks for the improvement. With the new sources added and less-reliable sources removed, as the nominator I no longer have much concern and I am now inclined to Keep. --94rain ^Talk 02:51, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The subject's writing career includes books released by traditional publishing houses (Harcourt Brace and H. Holt, with reviews by Publishers Weekly and Kirkus Reviews). Some of those books have been reprinted in Chinese, German and Spanish. She has created a significant body of work. Add to that the wide distribution of those books in libraries, as pointed out by DGG, and the subject clearly passes WP:AUTHOR. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 22:22, 27 December 2019 (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.