Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Florence

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. v/r - T P 01:04, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Florence

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

Fails WP:NOTABILITY at both WP:ARTIST and WP:ENTERTAINER. Effectively an unreferenced WP:BLP as sole citation is not to a WP:RS. Current body of work is not well known or the subject of independent articles or reviews. Subject's Twitter biography links to this article suggesting WP:COI under WP:SELFPROMOTE. Exok (talk) 17:47, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. —AllyD (talk) 19:53, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Media activity within one country is always awkward, but Mr Florence's body of work is well-known within Scotland, and I think he has just enough across various achieved projects to be regarded as notable. There has been Scottish media discussion on why various comedies, including Florence's, have not been taken up elsewhere: see for example this article in The Glasgow Herald from May (requires registration). However that may be changing with his Burnistoun being shown by the wider BBC network. I've added some references (not the best and in need of improvement, but a start). There is also this sketch/news story with which people may be familiar. AllyD (talk) 20:14, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks real-world notable, and ability to find more sources to establish wp:notability is likely. North8000 (talk) 20:26, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:AFTER of User:AllyD that shows meeeting WP:ENT and WP:GNG. One does not need world-wide notability to show real-world notability, and such sourcable notability, even if primarily to Scotland, is perfectly fine for Wikipedia. While a poorly referenced BLP is always of concern, we do better to not judge improvable articles by their current state but rather to judge them based upon available sources and a serious consideration toward what can be accomplished through cleanup and regular editing, and then proactively address such concens ourselves rather then request a removal because someone else had not yet done it. Kudos to AllyD. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:22, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Schmidt's statement - "we do better to not judge improvable articles by their current state but rather to judge them based upon available sources" - is one of the most sensible things I have ever read at an AFD. I remember some truly horrific AFD decisions back in the early days of Wikipedia, when articles were simply deleted because someone took a strong dislike to the User who created them, rather than to available academic sources which could establish notability. One of the worst examples I have ever come across was this travesty back in 2007 (if any Admin fancies furnishing me with a copy of the deleted text, I plan to properly establish notability, fully referenced; he was a far more notable figure than eg. Robert Florence!) --Mais oui! (talk) 05:37, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I do not in any way wish to marginalize real concerns toward BLP issues, but only stress that we should all strive for the better ways to address such, with proactively fixing the problem properly being at the top of the list of options that improve a growing Wikipedia. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:08, 21 November 2011 (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.