Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oisin Tymon

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 delete. sufficient consensus that BLP1E applies DGG ( talk ) 17:57, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oisin Tymon[edit]

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

Fails WP:BLP1E - Prior to the Jezza incident he wasn't known at all and he'll probably be only known for this and that's it,
The incident is mentioned on both the Jeremy Clarkson article and the Top Gear article so no objections to Redirecting if wanted. –Davey2010^Talk 15:01, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just realized it was prodded a mere second by AussieLegend before me nominating this so pinging them. –Davey2010^Talk 15:09, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not worth his own article on the basis of the Clarkson steak incident, classic example of misplaced BLP notability here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:13, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep while I understand the concern about BLP1E, he flys past WP:GNG and the rest of the notability criteria, and has had extensive coverage in multiple news sources. I am still planning on expansion with past this to to fill it in past 1 event but I'm on mobile right now so I'm limited. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 15:14, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, BLP1E applies to individuals who are notable for only one event and this is clearly the case here. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:17, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He is also notable for the other 8 movies/shows he has produced, which I have now added. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 00:58, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No he's not. He doesn't pass WP:GNG on any of these. Simply being mentioned in the credits or working on the project does not establish notability. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:19, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The reason I prodded this article is that WP:BLP1E applies. Contrary to the claim in the first sentence of the article, the individual is not "best known for his role in producing Top Gear (2002 TV series)". He is best known for being punched by Jeremy Clarkson and it was only this incident that resulted in him being found to be a producer of Top Gear. Prior to this he was not listed as a producer of the series, this was only added to Top Gear (2002 TV series) more than two weeks after Clarkson was suspended.[1] In fact, had Tymon given Clarkson his steak, we'd probably still be blissfully ignorant of Tymon's involvement in the series. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:17, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, clear case of WP:BLP1E. Coverage is entirely in the context of a single event. January (talk) 15:39, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to those referring to WP:BLP1E I will quote directly from there:

"We should generally avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met:

If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event. (Iffy on this point)
If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article. (He could gain more coverage in the future, but I'm no crystal ball)
If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. (The event is significant and has recieved excessive media coverage and he played a substantial well documented role in it)"

EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 15:52, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Point 3 of WP:BLP1E goes on to say: "John Hinckley, Jr., for example, has a separate article because the single event he was associated with, the Reagan assassination attempt, was significant and his role was both substantial and well documented", this is an example of what is meant by a significant event in this context of BLP1E. BLP1E also states that "The significance of an event or individual is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources." Given how recent this event is (it only became public knowledge on 10 March), the coverage of Tymon cannot be described as persistent. January (talk) 16:32, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:42, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:42, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:43, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He's the one who broke Top Gear, of course he deserves a wiki article just like Breivik, Adam Lanza or James May. 85.193.250.22 (talk) 20:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's plenty of blame to go around, but that isn't a valid reason for creating an article, and he is notable only for that event, so WP:BLP1E applies. --AussieLegend (✉) 20:34, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have expanded the article quite a bit, to include more notability displaying things like his past filmography. I have also added 5 times the references as before. Can I also site WP:DONOTDEMOLISH in saying this article was nominated less than an hour after creation? EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 00:56, 29 March 2015 (UTC) I also want to point out I have added references to sources outside of the Steakgate incident which reference his notability as the producer of Top Gear, much in the same way as Andy Wilman. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 01:44, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The number of references in the article is irrelevant. We only require BLPs to have at least one references and BLPs require strong references. Points in the article are supported by 2, 3 and 4 references, but that doesn't make the article any better, because they're all referencing the one incident. Basic information, like the birthdate, remain unreferenced and the recently added filmography is now referenced by IMDB, which is why I added {{BLP IMDB refimprove}}, which you've now removed. I'm sorry, but everything in the article is biographical, so that tag was entirely appropriate. Regarding WP:DONOTDEMOLISH. the article was nominated for the obvious reason that the subject is notable only for one event and isn't going to pass WP:GNG any time soon. Davey2010's nomination was entirely appropriate. --AussieLegend (✉) 01:21, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note to say that it's considered bad form to keep altering your posts after they've been replied to.[2] Regarding that addition, Andy Wilman was notable prior to the recent incident, for many years in fact. His BAFTA awards establish his notability. The references you've been adding merely supplement the IMDB filmography. These don't establish notability on their own. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:15, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

EoRdE6 - Nominating an article an hour after creation is absolutely fine, However nominating within a minute of creation on the other hand isn't, I'd also like to point out the fact I had absolutely no idea what time you even created it - I simply saw an edit summary with you stating "Linked Oisin Tymon" so thus nominated it so unfortunately the whole "This is a bad faith nom" doesn't wash, At the end of the day We don't need an article on some non-notable bloke only becoming known due to the fact he got smacked by a celebrity. –Davey2010^Talk 02:31, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only notable for one event, which can be summed up in due weight on the articles on Clarkson and Top Gear '''tAD''' (talk) 01:06, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While it is true that this is "an article on some non-notable bloke only becoming known due to the fact he got smacked by a celebrity", the events this occurance has precipitated are both ongoing and very relevant - for example, the death threats to the head of the BBC which are being reported as happening as a result of events surrounding the gentleman in question. People, do, indeed , have no idea who Oisin Tymon is, or what he has done in his proffesional career, or why he was in the position in which he found himself - and people will come to Wikipedia looking for these facts. SO - whatever any guidlines may say, the article serves a very obvious purpose, and should be kept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.101.108.253 (talk) 22:00, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited. With the effects from this seemingly ever-expanding, the entire incident might possibly warrant a standalone article at some point, but Oisin Tymon would be a mere mention in that article. It still would not justify a standalone article for him. --AussieLegend (✉) 22:06, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree we should basically have articles on stuff but there's just some things that just don't need an article and this is a fine example, Anyway agree with AussieLegend perhaps the incident may have an article but as for Oision.... well this is far as it goes...... –Davey2010^Talk 22:37, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP even without the Clarkson incident he would have been notable for his large filmography background and the sources in that section. This incident just furthers his notability. 50.123.131.195 (talk) 13:37, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he wasn't notable and had no article before this event so I don't see how that claim is supportable. The world was only made aware of his existence because of the incident. A filmography (which is still partially sourced to IMDB only!) on its own does not establish notability. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:46, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wikipedia is not IMDb. It does not list every person involved in the making of TV shows or films. There is no way that Oisin Tymon would be notable without being socked in the face because Jeremy Clarkson did not get a steak with fondant potatoes.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:52, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'd have thought anyone who's spent a reasonable amount of time on Wikipedia would realise that this article is pointless and not needed whatsoever. The introduction is effectively talking about an incident with Jeremy Clarkson with a bit of padding about producing Top Gear. Ignoring the 'fracas' a few weeks ago, would this article have ever been created had he produced Top Gear for the rest of his life? Not a chance. 100% in favour of deletion. Bestbaggiesfan ✉ 01:50, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If his previous achievements didn't warrant an article, being sloshed round the chops certainly won't. Also oppose redirection.--Laun chba ller 19:06, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable enough to warrant own article, delete on the basis that any notable content from this page can be wholly integrated into either the Clarkson or TG articles. Tegrenath (talk) 23:43, 2 April 2015 (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.