Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clive Fiske Harrison

Add links
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 no consensus to delete. Merge proposals, where applicable, should be pursued on the individual article talkpages.  Skomorokh  15:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clive Fiske Harrison

[edit]
Clive Fiske Harrison (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Lack of notability. I am also nominating the following related pages because this cluster of articles seems to be a self-promoting cluster:

Alexander Fiske-Harrison (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Pendulum - A Tragedy of 1900 Vienna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Irbisgreif (talk) 18:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

* My opinion, obviously, is delete. These articles do not adequately establish notability and seem to be maintained solely by Alexander Harrison and a friend, who concern themselves only with the existance of these articles. Irbisgreif (talk) 18:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC) [reply]

I would like to point out that I believe deletion should be without prejudice. Irbisgreif (talk) 22:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep: I have said on the talk page for the article why I think it should remain. The other two have been debated at length and I see no need to recycle the arguments which can be easily found. --Fiskeharrison (talk) 18:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC) [reply]

P.S. What nonsense about my editing: I have edited on subjects including bullfighting, animal behaviour, animal rights organisations, artificial intelligence, the village of Layer de la Haye and so on. I cannot speak for the editing of James Egerton - who is most certainly not a friend, but whom I have met once a year ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fiskeharrison (talk • contribs) 18:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Bigjimedge seems to care only about these articles, and your recent edits implied the same to me. Looking over your whole history, that was an exaggeration on my part. It remains my opinion that these articles do not meet notability because they source only a couple of people saying 'keep' without actually providing evidence of notability and "any play that opens in a regular professional theater and is reviewed by the mainstream media is notable" which is not policy. These articles are referenced, but a minor play, minor businessman, and minor writer are not notable. Consider that "Notability is not temporary". Will any of these things be remembered in a year? Ten? Judging from the lack of evidence, I say no. Irbisgreif (talk) 18:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As a side comment, discussion on the previous AfD's was hardly 'at length'. Very little discussing went on, it was more of a vote. Irbisgreif (talk) 18:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the general feeling is that corporations are not inherently notable, as explained in WP:CORP. I would argue that neither the corporation or it's CEO have received “significant coverage in secondary sources”. It's just a single article, an executive profile, and a list of 'important people'. Is that really significant? As for the other two articles, there are only a couple of reviews for the play, and the play with a few references to an article for AFH. Irbisgreif (talk) 22:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Strong Delete - As a vanity article written by the subject's son, I'm naturally inclined to lean toward deletion on principle. But I gave it a fair look. There is only a single source in the article that I would consider reliable, and in that source he was given a paragraph's mention only. Gnews has a single mention of him, and that's only in a directory of stockbrokers, so again only a passing mention. He isn't automatically notable for being a CEO, nothing in WP:BIO or any of our other notability guidelines suggest this. I don't see how he passes Wikipedia's threshold for inclusion. -- Atamachat 22:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

:*Reply - Per comments below, and from what I can tell myself from scanning those references, the coverage of Fiske in those locations is trivial. WP:N requires non-trivial coverage in reliable sources as the basic threshold for notability. -- Atamachat 15:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC) [reply]

  • Keep the play - The Pendulum - A Tragedy of 1900 Vienna seems notable enough to keep around. It had some coverage by notable media outlets, and the previous AfD had some very good arguments for keeping it. -- Atamachat 22:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Alexander also - The previous AfD for Alexander was a clear deletion consensus. The only objections gave an opinion without due justification. It should have been deleted then and I'll go on record saying that the administrator made a mistake. I'd actually support redirecting Alexander's biography to the play, since it seems to be his only real claim to notability. -- Atamachat 22:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have made this remark elsewhere, but I will put it again here: notability in the business world does not translate as celebrity. However, there is a reason that the lead financial columnist for The Times describes Clive Harrison as, "one person whose views I respect."[1] Equally, when the newspaper of the City of London, the Evening Standard, ran two articles [2] & [3] about the head of Uk's financial regulatory body. The two separate financial journalists quoted the same four people: the chairman of Treasury Select Committee, the chief executive of Association of Private Client Investment Managers and Stockbrokers, the director-general of the Association of Independent Financial Advisors AND Clive Harrison (note that 2 of the other 3 have Wiki entries, and the third should). This raises the question, do the editors here know more than the journalists whose lives revolve around this world? Or are they claiming the business world is somehow less notable in itself? It is for this reason the editorial board of Debrett's People of Today placed him in their business leaders section[4] under the advice of the editor of that section and his contacts. As for other sources, here is a couple: The Independent [5] and also, the Investor's Chronicle [6], which, under the headline 'Fiske Holds Its Own' began this article: "A year ago, Fiske's chief executive and founder Clive Harrison predicted a tough 2008 for stock markets, and so it proved. But Fiske has old-fashioned virtues to keep it going in hard times: for starters, it2 has plenty of cash and has been cash-positive ever since the company was formed 35 years ago.--Fiskeharrison (talk) 11:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there are occasional references to Clive Harrison and his sons play in the papers, but they fail a critical part of the notability test. Someone or something that is notable receives more than just a short burst of attention or an occasional article. As I asked above, would any of this be remembered in the future? Irbisgreif (talk) 12:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not fame, as the guidelines clearly state. The timbre of the articles, and the places they are published, are what give the evidence - and they are over decades. The founding of Fiske & Co by Clive Harrison was written about in The Times in 1971. In terms of Alexander Fiske-Harrison, the feature length piece (on the author, not the play) in Conde Nast's Tatler magazine (which can be viewed in facsimile online at [7]), should be viewed alongside these [8] [9] from The Spectator, this from Prospect magazine and this [10] from Eamon Fitzgerald. --Fiskeharrison (talk) 12:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning towards delete (Clive Fiske only; the other two, I believe, should be nominated separately on their own merit). In the interests of full disclosure, I was asked to look at this AfD by the nominator. The rationale behind my vote is as follows: presently, the article is supported by four references, none of which, in my opinion, passes WP:BIO. As per WP:BIO, [a] person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. The first reference (Sunday Times) is a generic article about market situation in 2009. Clive Harrison is mentioned as the person whose opinion the reporter "respects"; however, Mr. Harrison himself is not the subject of the article. This, in my book, falls under the "trivial coverage of the subject" provision of WP:BIO (i.e., the subject is only mentioned in passing in relation to something else), and cannot be counted towards establishing notability. The second (Financial Times) and third (Debretts People) references are merely directory entries, and are trivial in nature as well. The fourth reference (website of Fiske plc) is, obviously, not independent of the subject. Based on these references, I cannot in good faith attest that the subject is notable, although I would be willing to re-consider if additional sources (which would not have the same flaws as the sources above) are introduced.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:58, July 29, 2009 (UTC)
Further sources have been placed in the comment just above, but I am hesitant to alter the article myself. Equally, [Debrett's People Of Today] is not a directory. People are nominated for entry and the editorial board then verify their their suitability. Hence its former, if pompous, title: Debrett's Distinguished People Of Today. --Fiskeharrison (talk) 14:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Debrett's People, by itself, is not a directory (and neither is Financial Times for that matter), but that does not preclude the record being cited to have a directory entry quality. The important thing that neither the Debrett's People, nor the Financial Times entry rises above the "trivial" quality. Regarding the sources presented in the comment above, I have not taken those into consideration. I'll post a follow-up here once I am done reviewing them. Thanks for pointing them out.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:25, July 29, 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. I would add that whilst the FT is a directory. in this case, for which being CEO and Chairman of a public company is the eligibility criteria, Debretts is one for which notability itself is the criteria - hence the term 'business leaders'. This makes it non-trivial. Whether the notability requirements of Debretts and Wiki are the same I leave it to you to judge. --Fiskeharrison (talk) 14:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(after edit conflict with the comment immediately above) I have reviewed the sources presented in the comment above, and, regretfully, have to conclude that they are not what WP:BIO asks for either.
The Evening Standard articles (1 and 2) only contain a few comments by Clive Harrison; the articles themselves are about something else entirely. While these two articles can be used as clues that Mr. Harrison might indeed be a notable person, they do not establish notability proper on their own.
To answer the question ("do the editors here know more than the journalists whose lives revolve around this world?"), the answer is certainly a "no". This, however, is precisely why we, "the editors here", must rely on outside unequivocal sources, and, as per our guidelines, those sources should establish notability based on a clearly defined set of parameters, not on hearsay and implications by the journalists, no matter how high of a circle those journalists revolve around. Someone's presumption or implication that someone else is notable is not good enough around here; what we need is a direct indication. This article in Investor's Chronicle is the closest that gets to such a direct indication of all the sources presented so far (I should, however, mention that I was unable to access this article in The Independent, so I am unable to assess its applicability to the situation), but even that is not exactly about the person but rather about the company (Fiske plc). If the sources listed above are the best one can get, perhaps it would make more sense to go WP:CORP route and request an article to be written about Fiske plc, instead of Mr. Harrison? Mr. Harrison's information could then be incorporated into the company's article. I don't know how easy it would be for the "Fiske plc" article to meet WP:CORP, but at least it's one alternative to think about. And, of course, it would be much preferable if someone unrelated to the company is the person who writes something about it. The COI aspect in this situation makes it uneasy for me to recommend a "keep", which is one of the reasons why I am so picky about the sources being used.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:01, July 29, 2009 (UTC)

Fiske-harrison break 1

[edit]
  • Comment having seen the proposer of this AfDs frequent mention of the CORP regulations, I read them again and came across this: "Publicly traded corporations:

There has been considerable discussion over time whether publicly traded corporations, or at least publicly traded corporations listed on major stock exchanges such as the NYSE, NASDAQ and other comparable international stock exchanges, are inherently notable. Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in this case. However, sufficient independent sources usually exist for such companies that notability can be established using the primary criterion discussed above. Examples of such sources include independent press coverage, analyst reports, and profiles by companies such as Hoover's (a commercial source)." I have added half a dozen more articles talking about Fiske plc and Clive Harrison and here is Fiske's Hoover page [11]. --Fiskeharrison (talk) 15:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Finally, I think the statemnt "Bloomberg names Fiske 'top broker'" followed by the statement in the same article "Renowned for the entrepreneurial approach of chief executive officer Clive Harrison" should count for something. As for longevity - this was 2001. [12]--Fiskeharrison (talk) 16:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see it. To have founded, majority-owned and run for four decades (and have named after you) a company that meets CORP and to be described by the national press as renowned and respected and to be entered in the most reliable directory in the country as a business leader, but not to be notable on wikipedia, seems a little odd. I understand mistrust of the possible COI but that does seem taking it a little far. --Fiskeharrison (talk) 11:28, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not uncommon at all on Wikipedia. It's a little like WP:BLP1E, where a person is notable only for a single, notable incident, you have an article about the incident but not the person. It's not the same, clearly, but it's similar because your father is notable for the corporation and the corporation alone (based on what the reliable sources have shown). In any case, what the end result would be is that there could be a section in the company article talking about your father, and then the article that bears your father's name would redirect people to the company article. So a person searching for your father would be redirected to the company's article and still see him there. It's almost procedural as much as anything, but I still think it's the most appropriate thing to do here. -- Atamachat 00:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like to note that my feelings on this have changed slightly, given the comments. Merge Clive Fiske Harrison into a new article about the company and merge the play into the article on Alexander Fiske Harrison. I feel that combined into two articles in this way, each one would easily satisfy notability. I would also like to see some better editing, preferably from someone who doesn't have a COI. I still feel that an overall deletion without prejudice is better than keeping the articles as they are now. Irbisgreif (talk) 01:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Deletion in AfD isn't really a deletion "without prejudice", unless you mean that the articles wouldn't be salted. Anyone recreating the articles would have to (A) make them significantly different than they are now and (B) address any concerns presented in this AfD discussion that led to the deletion result (which would probably mean finding more and/or better reliable sources covering them). Simply recreating the articles would lead to a G4 speedy deletion (recreation of deleted material). I'm just pointing this out for anyone unfamiliar with AfD, not necessarily to you. -- Atamachat 01:01, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Clive to a Fiske company article and Merge the play into the Alexander article - Changing my vote per Irbisgreif above. Seems like the most sensible compromise regarding these articles that have dubious claims to notability. -- Atamachat 00:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Comment I found the above changes confusing, so I thought I would add a synoptic comment and my own views (and strike-through my earlier keep). Three of the four who opted to delete Clive Fiske Harrison have changed their views to merger, whereas four of the five who opted to keep (myself included) have remained the same, the change going for merger as well. The reason I am against merger is that I see the author as more important than the work (and certainly this set up as very different to being involved in a single incident, which, the guidelines say, would still entitle the individual to an entry if their involvement was significant). I flagged the article for COI as I thought others would worry about the possibility, not because there is any. I have neither excluded nor misrepresented any information in the sources, which are now greatly increased, as has been the material about Fiske plc, effectively doing the merger, but in reverse. It would seem that only one editor wants Alexander Fiske-Harrison deleted, and I am happy to merge The Pendulum - A Tragedy of 1900 Vienna by way of compromise later today BUT, I am not sure if this is the correct course of action, as it is not the majority view and the previous AfD there was a unanimous vote of 5-0 (not including proposer) to keep it. --Fiskeharrison (talk) 11:10, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sorry to be a pain, but the reason this has been so complicated has been the triple nomination. This has led to rather shabby horse-trading - you can't change, delete or keep an article because of a compromise over an unrelated article, that's the wiki equivalent of Congressional 'pork'. Equally, people who might have commented on a play - or its author - are not going to about a businessman, which makes it unrepresentative. It seems to be only right that before The Pendulum - A Tragedy of 1900 Vienna can be merged or deleted, it has to stand for its own AfD, not least because when it last did, it was a unanimous 5-0 keep!--Fiskeharrison (talk) 14:10, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all four as follows:
  1. The Pendulum is a play in a major theatrical center with numerous reviews and therefore is notable. Any fictional work with major reviews is, they're the necessary secondary sources. Who wrote the article or how it got there is a minor consideration. We should not merge with the author because, unlike a novel, a play involves other people also--it is not the sole creation of the playwright.
  2. Alexander--normally my view is that in a question between an author and a work being notable when the work is the sole source of notability as it is here, we should go with the author because the author of oner notable work can & generally does produce more works, but a play might be an exception, in which case we need them both. At present, the article on the author would be very short.
  3. the company. a large firm doing an important share of business in a field and with significant references for it is notable. If Bloomberg ranks Fiske plc as the top stockbroker in the City, it's notable.
  4. Clive--the ceo of a notable firm is notable. That's how businesspeople normally become notable.

I recognize the problems of all 4 articles being here together as a sort of family project, but this is best handled by keeping them brief and factual. Given that they all 4 represent different problems, I think the group nomination was an error. I remind the author that if there is merging, it might be better for others to do it. DGG (talk) 21:06, 31 July 2009 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Clive_Fiske_Harrison&oldid=1137721108"