Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elaine Lorillard
From 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. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Elaine Lorillard
She seems to have had a minor role in the jazz festival, and there is little significant to say about her beyond that fact, and little published beyond the Bloston Globe and AP wire service obituaries (the latter being widely-published). I have added a mention of her to Newport Jazz Festival, which seems sufficient.
I had {{prod}}ded this article, but the prod was removed without explanation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:BIO1E. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 00:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- Note. I have reverted a series of 3 edits which expanded the article slightly, because they also removed the AfD tag. The expanded article looked like this. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- Merge to Newport Jazz Festival. She only notable for one thing, and that can be summarized in two-three sentences at the article for the Festival. Caknuck (talk) 00:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep and expand Excellent article on a very notable person. Calling her role in the creation of the NJF "minor" is just silly and misleading. The New York Times credits her as a founder. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- No it doesn't credit her as a founder; she suggested the idea, and persuaded her husband to lend some cash, and that's it. Even after you expanded the article, there is still only one sentence about anything she actually did of note:
. WP:BIO#People_notable_only_for_one_event applies here, unless someone wants to argue that sueing the festival is grounds for notability (filing-a-lawsuit-makes-you-notable sounds to me like a very bad idea). And are you really sure that it's appropriate to describe as "excellent article" something you have just written? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)While visiting George Wein's club in 1953, she told him jazz might liven up the "terribly boring" establishment. Her husband, tobacco heir Louis Lorillard, who died in 1986, gave a $20,000 grant to a festival, the first of which in July 1954 attracted 11,000 fans
- No it doesn't credit her as a founder; she suggested the idea, and persuaded her husband to lend some cash, and that's it. Even after you expanded the article, there is still only one sentence about anything she actually did of note:
- I am not sure which New York Times you read, maybe there is another one, ill give you the benefit of the doubt. The NewYork Times I cited has the following headline: "Elaine Lorillard, 93, a Founder of the Newport Jazz Festival, Is Dead." (emphasis added) --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Well, me writing, and me restoring your harsh deletions. You could have kept the AFD tag without deleting the additions. You tend to act hasty, and use the harshest route to accomplish your goals, especially when you conflict with Kitia. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Reply. Richard, you are confusing the headline with the article text. The article says that it was John Maxon's idea, which the Lorillards picked up and "The Lorillards got in touch with George Wein, then the owner of a jazz club in Boston, and asked him to produce that first festival." Headlines are written by sub-editors against a variety of constraints, including saving space, and should not be relied upon to convey the all subtleties of the article: a more accurate headline would have been "Elaine Lorillard, 93, involved in the foundation of the Newport Jazz Festival" ... but no sub-editor is going to write something that verbose unless they are trying to fill some whitespace on the page.
As to Kitia, check the history. Kitia deleted a {{prod}} tag without comment, something for which (s)he has been previously rebuked by others, and then subsequently removed the AfD tag. An AfD tag says quite clearly "this notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed", and I reverted its removal. If your only complaint in all of this is that I took the easy route of reverting the removal rather than unravelling the versions, then you have got things seriously back-to-front. The reason I sometimes appear harsh with Kitia is because I repeatedly find myself having to deal with with Kitia's disruptive practices of reverting edits without comment or discussion, removing AfD tags and copyvio notices etc, and because all attempts at discussion had been futile; so I took the easiest path to undoing the damage. I don't know why you seem to find nothing at all wrong with such clearly deprecated practices as uncommented reversions and removals of notices, yet repeatedly make unfounded allegations of bad faith against me, but it's getting rather tedious. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC) - Comment You are the master of original research! You are now rewriting headlines for the New York Times to rationalize your arguments. If the New York Times calls her a founder, she is a founder. If they call someone a genius, they are a genius. It doesn't matter if it appears in a headline, or the body, or the lede, or even in the buried lede. So long as we refer to the source of the information, and that source is a reliable source, its worthy of inclusion. I think last time, you were explaining to me how the Washington Post could use an Associated Press report without having to give credit to the Associated Press, so that the Washington Post shouldn't count as a separate source. Thats all original research, and doesn't belong in articles or in AFDs. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Richard, a headline is a shorthand summary, which necessarily omits any nuances: I simply ask that you follow what is said in the full explanation in the body text of an article rather than relying on a headline, and if that's original research, I'm a banana.
As to the Washington Post article, I simply pointed out that the full article was not available to view, and that the AP byline could well have appeared at the end of an article which was not visible beyond the first two paragrpahs. This is not original research: it's a caution about relying on material which has not been read in full. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Richard, a headline is a shorthand summary, which necessarily omits any nuances: I simply ask that you follow what is said in the full explanation in the body text of an article rather than relying on a headline, and if that's original research, I'm a banana.
- Reply. Richard, you are confusing the headline with the article text. The article says that it was John Maxon's idea, which the Lorillards picked up and "The Lorillards got in touch with George Wein, then the owner of a jazz club in Boston, and asked him to produce that first festival." Headlines are written by sub-editors against a variety of constraints, including saving space, and should not be relied upon to convey the all subtleties of the article: a more accurate headline would have been "Elaine Lorillard, 93, involved in the foundation of the Newport Jazz Festival" ... but no sub-editor is going to write something that verbose unless they are trying to fill some whitespace on the page.
- Keep. Notability clearly established by references now in the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep A well-written and thoroughly documented article that supports the claim that she was the main impetus behind the creation of the Newport Jazz Festival. I can understand why the stub had been nominated, but the changes made since the AfD was initiated address any meaningful issues raised in the nomination. Kudos to all involved for doing the research and adding the multiple sources that satisfy the Wikipedia:Notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 22:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Thanks Richard Norton! ''[[User:Kitia|Kitia]]'' (talk) 22:30, 13 December 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.
