Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Fiske-Harrison (2nd nomination)

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. Kevin (talk) 23:45, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Fiske-Harrison

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

The previous nomination (January 2009) cited self-authored sources, insignificant coverage, and probably could have been closed as delete. The issue is still the same. Marginally notable as a writer (blogger is probably more accurate) and his acting career fails WP:ENTERTAINER. Grsz¹¹ 22:00, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete same as my previous delete rationales, this guy hasn't recieved significant coverage in independant sources and the article was always intended to be promotional in nature. I'm glad to see this back at AfD. Them From Space 01:27, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 03:37, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 03:38, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 03:46, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes, the article needs WP:CLEANUP. But it might seem that despite no one doing so, it has possibilities, as the man and his theatrical works have been covered in reliable sources: Hampstead and Highgate Express, The Stage, The Guardian, The Times,The Telegraph, Time Out, and The Independent. It seems also that he also a writes for Prospect (magazine), Frieze (magazine), and The Times. And I'll have to do a search to see if his books get reviewed. If there had been only one or two articles about this fellow, I would not opine keep. Time to finally fix, yes... but not to toss. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:36, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- On the merits of these articles: Hampstead - his name is mentioned; The Telegraph a few sentences; Independent mentions his name; and the others are short short review write-ups, leaving us with just The Times. Grsz¹¹ 20:21, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You might want to look at, for example, the 10,000-word profile of him in The Times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.52.15 (talk) 14:49, 4 April 2010 (UTC) [reply]
- One really needs to stretch to consider that a profile of him (you?). Grsz¹¹ 15:18, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  @ User:Grsz11: Meeting our notability standards through application of the general notability guideline does not also mandate his meeting WP:ENT... or else one may as well note that he also does not met WP:Athlete and WP:Politician. Any concerns with article tone might be best addressed through regular editing using available reliable sources. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:27, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ~~This nomination is either dishonest or astoninishingly lazy~~. The original nomination was about an article NOT one word of which remains. What is more, NOT one reference about me, was authored by me (I believe there are some articles clearly marked as by me to reference the fact that I have written for those publications.) Despite having left Wikipedia, I was contacted via my blog about this. This is the third AfD. Even if the first may have been a justified call which decided on keep, the second was not. This certainly is not. My research into bullfighting has been written about in the longest article ever written for the United Kingdom's first Newspaper of record, The Times, as it has been in the UK's second newspaper of record, Daily Telegraph, as the West End play I produced, wrote and acted in was reviewed by the UK's most senior theatre critic Michael Billington in the the UK's third newspaper of record, The Guardian. I believe many other references are there as well. --Fiskeharrison (talk) 17:49, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm somewhat bewildered by the nomination. Evalpor (talk) 18:07, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Great, but that's not a particular reason to keep. Grsz¹¹ 18:52, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for that. I'll amend accordingly: my vote to keep stands, per commentary by Schmidt,. Evalpor (talk) 19:09, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Apologies for loss of temper. However, I quote from general notability guideline, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." There is no way anyone could possibly claim that this standard has no been achieved and far surpassed. --Fiskeharrison (talk) 18:57, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, it's questionable how "independent" the most significant coverage (The Times) is, when it seems to be a friend writing about a friend. Grsz¹¹ 19:02, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  @ User:Grsz11: Are you now declaring that The Times somehow no longer has editorial oversite or that they have lost their reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? Wikipedia assigns RS to certain media because of the source's editorial oversight, and not to the individual writing for the paper. With the numerous other reliable sources have written about this individual allowing meeting WP:GNG, I myself have no doubt as to Hampstead and Highgate Express, The Stage, The Guardian, The Times,The Telegraph, Time Out, and The Independent all being respected and acceptble RS. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:48, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  That's not at all what I said, just that I was unsure if we judge independence solely as whether or not the source is intended to be promotional? Even if that's not an issue, the original issues still remain in my mind. If somebody were to write an article about me, no matter how long-winded, it doesn't make me notable. Several articles have been presented, with varying degrees of relevance to the subject, that myself and others have found insufficient, that's all. As a perfect example, most of those articles simply mention the subject, mostly just in parenthesis to note he played that character. How more trivial can we get? Grsz¹¹ 20:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  We're not speaking about a WP:SPS or an Op-Ed piece. Many newspapers specifically send their reporters out to seek information about a subject they feel is worth covering. A newspaper's actively seeking facts to present to the reading public does not make them "dependent". Since The Times' is not owned nor controlled by Fiske-Harrison, their having a media interest in something they determine "worthy of note" does not mean they are somehow no longer independent. It's The Times' own editorial oversite and reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, pretty much assure their being "independent of a subject". As for reviews of his plays, certainly the reviews will be about the plays and "mention" him as playwrite. In is in the coverage of a playwight's work that act's toward the playwrite's notability. Butthis fellow is not a one-trick pony. Those reviews, in conjunction with the numerous other articles about the individual and the other subjects in which the individual took part show the notability required by guideline. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:38, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:45, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Click on Google news search at the top of the AFD. Whats wrong with those four results? Seems like sufficient coverage to me. Dream Focus 18:58, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Convenient that Alexander just left messages for four users who voted to keep his articles in the past. Grsz¹¹ 19:01, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That remark is sarcastic and disingenuous abuse. ALL commenters on that AfD for this article voted keepwith the exception of one who has already commented here, . They also requested a merger of four separate articles, of which this is the result. The reason for the contact is because a further debate was requested by the admin. --Fiskeharrison (talk) 20:30, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A playwright whose play is produced in a internationally important centre like the West End, and reviewed by multiple major newspapers is notable, as the equivalent of writing a best-seller. This ran for only 25 days, but I cannot tell whether this was a previously arranged limited run. Playwrights are notable for writing plays, and a review of their work & a appropriate secondary source about both the play and the author. The career as an actor is borderline notable, but I think meets our standards--several leading roles in professional productions. But the book on bull fighting has yet to be written. The self-promotion is a little off-putting, but does not disqualify the article for notability. DGG ( talk ) 19:48, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't feel that simply having a play reviewed exhibits notability. In fact, most of the sources provided seem to ignore the fact that he is the writer, and instead only mention him as the actor, ie this one. Grsz¹¹ 20:05, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Again this statement is false. None of the reviews of the play cited in the article fail to refer to the author, or review the writing in detail, nor do those in The Stage, Time Out etc, the one in Tatler being a profile as author & actor. The play review you link to is a completely different play.--Fiskeharrison (talk) 20:30, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Looks like I mixed up my Pendulum with Pentameter. Still though. And the other point remains, it is canvassing. Why didn't you comment to all the people who thought your article should be deleted the first time it came up? Grsz¹¹ 20:59, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment Yes, it does look you got mixed up doesn't it? Like you did about all the other articles you have discussed. (Who was The Times profile about in the end? And the relation to the person who wrote it? How about the Tatler profile?) I have no reason - and certainly no responsibility - to contact those involed in an AfD discussion over a year in the past about an article that bears no relation to this one. What I - and you - have a responsibility to is the wikipedia consensus that was reached in the AfD six months ago, following which actions were performed according to that consensual judgement, which you are arguing against. My commments are not canvassing: everyone from that AfD has been contacted. However, what you are doing is special pleading. --Fiskeharrison (talk) 22:31, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep one play does not a career make, but it has more than 2 reviews WP:AUTH: "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Pohick2 (talk) 03:02, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep COI notwithstanding, this dude clearly meets the GNG based on the reliable sources currently included in the article. The deletion arguments seem to center on whether a particular SNG can demand his exclusion when the GNG is met, and it is my position that the GNG/SNG relationship is either/or, rather than both/and. Jclemens (talk) 03:28, 12 April 2010 (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.