Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Dick

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 --Mike Cline (talk) 01:18, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Dick[edit]

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

Delete - Created by a corporate account with a COI. No reliable sources demonstrating notability. There are paid-for sources, user-generated sources, and sources with conflicts of interest, no reliable sources. The few sources that would be reliable are not directly about the subject, and only mention him in passing, which only establishes existance but not notability. - Ian.thomson (talk) 20:58, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources from Time Out, The Guardian, The Independent and The Times are independent reviews of the subject's work and constitute significant critical attention, satisfying WP:CREATIVE criteria 3 and 4. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Does Natalie Dew (Viola in the Twelfth Night) get an article just because she's mentioned in the Times article as well? Or Paddy Cunneen (did the music for 'Tis Pity She's a Whore) for being mentioned in the Guardian article? Ian.thomson (talk) 21:26, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, because neither of them was the director of the play, whose work was being reviewed. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:20, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:ARTIST, as User:Phil Bridger says above. His plays have received plenty of coverage in reliable sources and have "won significant critical attention": This Google News search provides many of them. I quickly found these sources: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], and there are definitely more available. Theleftorium ^(talk) 21:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Expand ~~or merge~~ I don't see this AfD as down to notability. In my opinion, Phil and Theleftorium have established beyond any doubt that this man is notable. But the decision on whether or not an individual should have a stand alone article should always boil down to whether or not it adds encyclopaedic value, regardless of established conventions. If this is a reasonable summary of his life, and there are similar articles on similar people from the same company, coverage on both the company and the individual would be best served with a higher-quality, concentrated article, rather than having to click on multiple links for little snippets of the picture. For clarity, this content definitely warrants coverage on wikipedia. But as the article stands, a merge of some description seems a logical step. --W F C-- 00:06, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see several problems with merging. Firstly, the sources show that Dick has worked with several different companies, so none of them would be suitable as a merge target. Secondly, having this as a separate article makes it more visible, and allows it to have a stub template to encourage the expansion that my fellow Hornets supporter would like. And thirdly (this is starting to remind me of the apocryphal story about the Cambridge don starting a sentence with "seventeenthly"), if this was merged any expansion would probably lead to the subject having undue weight in the target article. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:34, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point with the argument against a merge. Although I still maintain that, unexpanded, the article adds no encyclopaedic value. If a strict filter was applied, we could quite easily get everything on this page from the first page of Google, without the need to click on any links. --W F C-- 08:21, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:01, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there are lots of sources out there. Bearian (talk) 17:38, 26 July 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.