Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric Zaccar

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Robroams (talk | contribs) at 17:37, 22 October 2009 (→‎Eric Zaccar). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Eric Zaccar

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

A minor local playwright and musician. I don't believe this person meets the requirements of WP:BIO (and specifically WP:AUTHOR and WP:MUSIC). There are no reliable sources about the subject, and I can find very little about him. Even taking the unsourced article, all it asserts is that he's written some plays which have been performed by local groups; there's no indication any of these performances are notable, that the plays were reviewed by anyone, and certainly nothing like WP:AUTHOR's criterion that he is in any way an "important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors." The only coverage at all I can find about him is a single NY Times local-section mention of his play (here) which has little detail about him, and some mentions of a jury trial of which he was foreman (here). His musical and photographic efforts appear to be of similarly marginal significance. So I don't believe he's anything other than a very minor local figure with no general relevance, influence, or importance, and so that it's inappropriate that Wikipedia have an article devoted to him. Finlay McWalter • Talk 21:55, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The New York Post, the New York Times, and New York Newsday can hardly be called " very very minor local publications" as the user below has suggested. Eric Zaccar's work has been written about in all of those publications, and discussed at length on national major market radio programs, like Howard Stern, Joe Franklin and Joey Reynolds. Eric is listed as a prominant playwright and lyricist in Joseph Papp's Public Theater archives, and Mr. Papp was widely considered to be the most renowned theater producer of the latter half of the twentieth century. By all projections, Mr. Zaccar's upcoming feature film, WITHOUT HATE, is going to be a serious contender in the market. His plays have been produced all around New York City, and his last screenplay, ON THE OTHER SIDE, was produced as a feature film and distributed internationally. Though the user below seems to a gifted artist and photographer, he does not seem to be in New York, or the United States. I'm not sure exactly how he is receiving his information about an American writer, or why he seems to be on a personal vendetta against someone that he does not know, and knows little about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dreamdesignernow (talk • contribs) 21:06, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dreamdesignernow put this comment at the top of the page (so "the user below" means the nomination); I've moved it down to its place in the contemporaneous stream of comments -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 21:21, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • There isn't a shred of evidence for most of what you say in the article. The Post and Newsday mentions are tiny scraps on minor pages. The NY times story discusses the play, not Zaccar, and is in the local pages. The local pages of the times are like the local pages of any other US newspaper, and are no more evidence of notability than the same 3 column inches would be in the Sheboygan Press or the Duluth Tribune. None of these amounts to even a tiny review of a single play; one can hardly claim to be a noted playwright when no noted theatre critic has reviewed your play. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 21:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unless I am missing something, the only thing I can find on Google is Zaccar's comments following jury duty. I don't see anything about being a famous playwright. Warrah (talk) 02:37, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Google again, Warrah. Of the thousand plus articles and pages that come up about Eric Zaccar, less than ten per cent of them deal with said jury trial. Of course, all of that should be changing soon. The buzz in the business is, Eric's new screenplay, Without Hate, based on the afore mentioned case, is in pre-production and should be a major motion picture, within the year. I've been around the New York theater and independent film scene for quite a while, and I can tell you that Eric is rather well known, and well regarded. If I have to vote, I'm obviously going to say keep the article! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robroams (talk • contribs) 04:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Robroams has no other contributions -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 09:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not alleged. Eric's play, Starr's on Broadway, was plugged in the New York Post by Cindy Addams, a nationally renowned columnist, and Liz Smith, whose column was also syndicated to Newsday and many other papers. Look in the press clips section of starrplay.com or call the papers for verification, since you seem to have a lot of time to put into this. If Eric Zaccar is such an insignificant writer, why would they even mention him (and why are so many people spending so much time on this site, arguing about him)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robroams (talk • contribs) 15:34, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I'm part of the team that's producing the film, Without Hate, and I can tell you that the screenplay didn't come cheap. It's a truly brilliant piece of work that had twenty five actors, producers and industry people in the room stunned, at the first table reading. Eric was well known around New York for a long time, but his national, and dare I say international recognition are moments away.

The article should remain. If I was going to question anything it would be why a photographer and computer programmer, who doesn't seem to live on the same side of the world as Eric, is so obsessed with slandering a writer that he doesn't know, and doesn't know anything about. Actually, the photographer doesn't seem to live anywhere, or at least not anywhere that's apparent on his long, rambling web pages or many fragmented E-Mail addresses.

We still need Eric around for last minute rewrites, and I'd hate to think that we have to increase our budget to include bodyguards to protect him from a possible stalker. — Ariellamarie (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 15:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]

Why is it necessary for me to have commented about other articles? This is a subject that I care about, that I'm WELL INFORMED about, and that has a DIRECT IMPACT ON MY BUSINESS and my life. Again, one must question why this writer, that you don't know and that you call insignificant, has driven you to such a vengeful, venomous, arguably libelous attack. Then again, to prove liability, it would probably be necessary to find a mailing address, or even a valid E-Mail address to serve court papers to, somewhere on your many long, rambling web pages.

Again, I say keep the article! Get rid of the nasty comments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ariellamarie (talk • contribs) 18:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete There's a lot of water between me and the subject of this article, but that doesn't mean I hate him or am disqualified from commenting. The comments above about 'other articles' are because we get a lot of people suddenly making a lot of noise about one particular subject, which they appear to be connected to, and then disappearing again. They mostly seem to think this is a voting situation. It isn't. The bold type Delete or Keep is just a marker, and should only be used once per account. Other remarks are 'Comments'. You are 'well informed' about this matter. Can you give some evidence of the notability of the subject - in terms of reliable third party sources? Please note that the new screenplay falls foul of one of our policies in terms of notability as it hasn't yet come out. If it were going to be a film by Spielberg, and there was good reliable evidence of this, yes - good case for notability. By a company that returns only 5 Google hits, 2 of which are their own site, I'm afraid not. As to the subject here, I can get a lot of ghits. The first 10 pages return nothing that I would consider up to our requirements. If you can provide what I couldn't find, please do. As to slander, there is none as this is written. Libel? I've looked carefully and can't see any either. I am not a lawyer, but I would imagine many would be happy to give professional opinions. A lot of the editors here would prefer to see an article saved rather than deleted. (If for no better reason than to avoid Egg on Face Syndrome...) But the article must fit our requirements. In my opinion, this one doesn't. If it can be saved, all to the good. Over to you - you know him. I only know what I see here and Google. Peridon (talk) 20:33, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your points are logical, if not necessarily accurate, but what I find detrimental and borderline libelous is this: My small, relatively new company has quite a lot riding on our upcoming feature film, Without Hate. However, while we're out, working 24-7 to secure the rest of our financing, attract the interest of talent, lock up distribution, tend to a thousand other details, and overcome the many other ordinary and expected obstacles that are inevitable when producing any feature film, we now have to deal with the fact that, when someone googles our writer, they see articles calling him “unimportant” “very minor” and “marginal.”

Besides the quality of Eric's work, it's his solid reputation that we were counting on when we purchased his script. Unfortunately, investors don't simply finance a film because they like the screenplay or story. Among many other things, they generally want to know who the writer is. As you yourself stated, google is considered a reliable way to check someone out. And as I'm sure you know well, Wikipedia pages are generally among the first to come up, when someone with an article is googled. In plainer English, the words of the person who introduced this dispute can turn out to be extremely costly and extremely damaging.

Another point that I feel compelled to make here is that, while Eric Zaccar is a rather versatile and complex talent, he has assured me that he's not now, nor has he ever been or claimed to be a musician, of any type. No articles, in Wikipedia, or anywhere else on or off the internet, state or insinuate that Eric has ever played any kind of musical instrument. Since the afore mentioned dispute instigator seems to be making the character destruction of a total stranger into his personal mission in life, it would be nice if at least SOME of his most basic information was accurate.

Maybe there are a fair amount of writers, actors, directors, artists, and musicians out there with more google-able credits than Eric Zaccar, and maybe some of them aren't mentioned in wikipedia. My suggestion is, rather than have bugs scouring the internet for articles to remove, why not use the same time and energy to scout for real talent, and find others, like Eric, who are worthy of your recognition? It is, after all, an encyclopedia of the people, isn't it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ariellamarie (talk • contribs) 13:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment – There are no "bugs scouring the internet for articles to remove" … editors simply monitor Special:NewPages here on Wikipedia for articles that are not worthy of inclusion based on established policies and guidelines … what part of Wikipedia:Notability do you not understand? As for your financial backers, they do not find "articles calling him “unimportant” “very minor” and “marginal.”" … instead they find a single article with nothing but links to the subject's own website, www.starrplay.com … this discussion was started because the subject of the article has not "received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" … by your own admission, this article contains false information about the subject ("he's not now, nor has he ever been or claimed to be a musician, of any type") which is much more likely to be grounds for litigation than alleged damage to his reputation in this forum, so either the information or the article (I say both) should be removed. — 141.156.161.245 (talk) 15:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I just re-read Eric Zaccar's wikipedia page, and I didn't find one word that said or implied that he was a musician, of any kind. It said that he was a lyricist, and newspaper coverage, as well as Youtube videos of songs that he wrote, will confirm that. It says that he has worked with and produced recordings for musicians. As one of thousands of examples, George Martin, the world renowned music producer, worked with and produced The Beatles. To the best of my knowledge, he's never been a musician himself. The art of lyric writing involves scrolling down words. Producing is a vague term that could involve hands on work, financing, coordinating or many other aspects of a production. I agree with Arriellemarie. If people are going to criticize someone that they don't know and don't know anything about, they should at least learn to read a simple short article and get their facts straight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robroams (talk • contribs) 16:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm up near Philadelphia, these days, and I don't get to New York City that often. However, I did make special trips for at least three of Eric Zaccar's plays. I've been a fan of this great writer, ever since his college productions, when I did live in New York. I loved "On the Other Side," and I can't wait for his upcoming movie, "Without Hate."

There are children dying for lack of food in Africa and other children dying because their insurance companies won't pay for their necessary operations, in the United States. Isn't there something more important to debate than whether or not a hardworking, talented, prolific and versatile writer should have a wikipedia article? And I say he should!! — Philg19 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 00:42, 21 October 2009 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]

  • Comment Three points to make. First, although the subject of the article may well be talented - I for one haven't said he is or isn't - that is not the question. Wikipedia has rules for inclusion. It has to have, otherwise it would be full of the sort of stuff that sank so many of the old usenet and bulletin board places. We still get loads of 'articles' that say 'Shawn is the most awesommnest everrrrrrrrr!!!!!!' or similar. Obviously, those go almost instantly. It's when you get to the more borderline cases that the trouble starts. You may think the subject of this article deserves an article. OK, prove it. We need far more than the unsupported opinion of a new visitor. Otherwise, come back Shawn, all is forgiven.... Second, while I am not decrying your hard work with your company, Wikipedia is not the place for promotying things (or people). It is an encyclopaedia, not a directory. Sure, a Wikipedia article could be a boost for a new or newish venture. Unfortunately, we'd be inundated with not only every neighbourhood florist's shop, but also the seller of flowers at the roadside in Swampville. Encyclopaedias are for recording what is of note not for discovering what is about to be. As I pointed out, a forthcoming Spielberg production is probably (not definitely, mind) of note - because of Spielberg. We need evidence from independent reliable sources even in his case. Thirdly, as one who writes myself, I do wish success to our subject here, and to the company doing the production. I won't be seeing the results, because I never watch films (other than Harry Potter and things like Ice Age) or plays (except for ones I've written...). I prefer books. I can see what's happening better when reading. Peridon (talk) 16:52, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If, as you suggested, being involved in a production or pre-production with Steven Spielberg would be enough to legitimize Eric Zaccar as a wikipedia worthy screenwriter, then being involved in a musical with Joseph Papp should give Eric equal credibility as a playwright and lyricist. While Mr. Spielberg can be considered one of many (or at least a handful of) truly great contemporary directors, Mr. Papp was widely considered to be the single most respected, renowned and important theater producer in the latter half of the twentieth century. If you check the New York Public Library's archives for Joseph Papp, available online and considered a bible in the New York theater world, you'll find Eric Zaccar's name, somewhere between the revered playwright, Christopher Durang, and the great composer, Barry Manilow. Eric is listed as lyricist and bookwriter, which in theater terms means playwright, for a Papp production called THE OEDIPUS COMPLEX. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ariellamarie (talk • contribs) 03:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I agree with Arrielle Maria. Google Eric Zaccar and you get at least a few legitimate references to film, theater, music, radio and television. His work is also credited on the pages of numerous performers. He seems to have an interesting and diverse enough career to warrant some coverage.

I also agree that, unless Eric's primary detractor, the person who began this whole debate, is an actual wikipedia employee, you have to question why he seems so passionately against someone who I'm assuming is a total stranger. — Oxentertainment (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 21:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]

Perhaps we “sock/meat puppets” (whatever the hell that means) reserve our comments for subjects we know and care about, and don’t sit in our rooms obsessing about people and things that have no effect on our own lives.

Let’s examine Eric Zaccar, once again: He has at least a few checkable credits as a playwright, lyricist and screenwriter. At least one or two of his pieces have been written about in several major New York newspapers. Numerous noted actors on IMDB site his plays, that they appeared in, on their “other works” section. Many references to Kenneth Starr site Eric’s play, about the notorious special prosecutor. And Joseph Papp, one of the greatest theater producers in history, has Eric's name listed in his official archives, as a book and lyric writer for one of his musicals.

Now let’s look at the person who started this debate and who, I’m assuming is now using his IP address to comment, since his name has been brought into question: He has long rambling diatribes, on both wikipedia and his own pages, that go on and on about many arguably pointless subjects, and that disclaim all the spam that others claim to have received from his sites. He seems to have little to do with his time, since he always appears to be right there at his computer, monitoring this page and ready to pounce, every time someone says something favorable to the subject. He has some moderately interesting photographs, that he claims to have taken, on his web pages, but they all seem to be of animals and inanimate objects. It makes you seriously wonder if he’s ever actually had a live, human, in person interaction.

None of his E-Mail addresses seem to be valid, and the whois page for his web domain lists phone numbers, like 555-1212, and conflicting mailing addresses, from England to California. Plus, like Jim Carrey’s psychotically obsessed stalker character in the film, The Cable Guy, even his name seems to be from a vintage television program. Wasn’t Maude married to Walter Finlay?

On top of all of that, his reading comprehension skills leave something to be desired. Again, though not one word in wikipedia, or anywhere else, indicates that the subject of this debate is a musician, this self appointed critic calls him one, in his very first sentence; and a minor one, at that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robroams (talk • contribs) 17:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I’m sure that this was first suggested as a joke, but the more I read about this man, the more I think that the subject of this debate might want to start examining whether he could be a serious threat. But then, how could legal action be taken against a web phantom who could live anywhere and be anyone?

And in all seriousness, why is this person so adamant about a total stranger? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robroams (talk • contribs) 16:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Clarification I said a forthcoming production by Spielerg 'could' be notable. Not that everyone who has worked with him (even the tea lady - vital but not notable) who has worked with him was notable. I don't say that Zaccar isn't notable - just that we are having a lot of heated air and no reliable evidence. We're not judging him by his Googleability. We're not judging him. We're judging this article - and we're judging by the standards of the organisation hosting the article. To use the example of my awesome friend Shawn again, are you willing to put Shawn's awesomeness up on your website for all to bow down to? You may be. (Personally,I don't advise it. Shawn's not so bad - it's his mates...) Get my drift? If you don't like the way Wikipedia works, start your own free access encyclopaedia. Can be done. (Not saying it's easy.) In the mean time, come up with the evidence that we are begging for, or please stop wasting our time with re-iterations of Eric Zaccar's awesomeness that are little better supported than Shawn's. Show that firstly Oedipus was notable, and secondly that Zaccar wrote it. Show us the pig - all we can see is the poke. Peridon (talk) 17:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, it was a while ago, before things like theater programs and reviews were saved on the internet. However, the link below is to as official a record as exists for Joseph Papp's Public Theater and New York Shakespeare Festival, the most noteable theater producer, and theater group, in New York. Everyone from DeNiro to Pacino to Dustin to Meryl proudly display their work with Papp on their resumes.

Search for Eric's name. It's right there between Barry Manilow's and Christopher Durang's. http://www.nypl.org/research/manuscripts/the/thenys02.xml

There are also two short Youtube versions of the Oedipus musical, that Eric animated himself (rather badly, or campily, by his own admission). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robroams (talk • contribs) 17:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sigh I do wish people would leave personalities out of this. For the record, sockpuppets are extra accounts operated by one person. When this is used for vandalism or for the purpose of influencing debates by inflating the numbers, this can lead to blocking - after the correct procedure has been gone through. Meatpuppets are like sockpuppets, but are accounts run from associates of the puppetmaster rather than directly. Also can be blockable. Are you going to mount attacks on all of us who try to uphold Wikipedia's standards, or do your bit to save the article? Over to you, whoever (and how many) you may be. No evidence = no article. I'm trying to see if the article is savable. What am I getting? 'Eric is awesome.' Is this Oedipus Complex notable? It was 'optioned' by Papp, but was instead produced as an animated 'ten minute musical'. I quote from "Eric Zaccar (c) 2006 by Central Art Productions Inc." at http://www.encyclopedia.com/video/gXlo1x9mQPU-oedipus-complex-original-rock-miniopera.aspx If you know more, let us know. The world of ten minute musicals is not one I frequent. Peridon (talk) 17:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC) And will everyone please sign their posts with four ~ things - it saves work for the poor signing bot. Thanks.[reply]
  • Quote from the link above at the NYPL: "File concerning the musical entitled The Oedipus Complex (Book and lyrics by Eric Zaccar; Music by Linda Edlund). Contains script and lyrics." OK. Shows it exists. But no more. Keep trying. Peridon (talk) 17:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can see, no one, whether a sock puppet, a meat puppet or an independent entity, has criticized any of the wikipedia editors. The ONLY person brought into question is the person who started this debate. He doesn't seem to be an official editor, and he seems to be the only one who's used detrimental phrasing, like "minor" and "marginal." The other wikipedia editors, who seem to work for the company, make logical points. I don't want to say that this first man sounds like a lunatic, because that would be detrimental in itself, but read my prior comments and draw your own conclusions. Signed Rob Stedelin

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Eric_Zaccar&oldid=321416401"