Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Scott (playwright)

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. Article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:41, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Scott (playwright)

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

Fails WP:CREATIVE. Notability claim seems to hinge on awards and reviews. The AASCA gives an award to every qualifying play performed at the festival. The Short+Sweet Wildcard award is for a single night of a multinight festival (and winning is sourced to a WP:SPS, the festival's site doesn't seem to bother listing it.) The reviews listed in the opening are from a university paper, the NODA website (doesn't mention Scott), and PlaysToSee, which is a user-submitted review site and thus not significant. Other references uses: APP.com (Asbury Park Press) is just a single-sentence passing reference. Goarticles.com appears to be a self-publishing platform, and thus a WP:SPS. Other sources are subject's own theatre group and band. Nat Gertler (talk) 03:35, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. This was my first edit and this morning I have noticed it's now up deletion. Thanks for the message above although I still comfused to what I have done. What is it you would like me to do to rectify the problem to keep this page? What evidence would suffice? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Playsthething (talk • contribs) 08:00, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Newspaper sources have now been added. What else do you think will help save the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Playsthething (talk • contribs) 08:48, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:42, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:42, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:42, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:43, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point about the AASCA and I agree that maybe this should be removed. (Which I have done). I don't understand where you've got The Short+Sweet festival site doesn't bother listing it. I've just found it withing 30 seconds. The NODA review doesn't mention Scott but it is about his play. It is cited under the fact that reviews have given special mention to particular lines. I'm also a little confused as the writer above is. What exactly is regarding as a submittable review. If NODA doesn't count as it doesn't mention a name, playstosee isn't notable enough, a university one doesn't count then we aren't leaving much option except newspapers. (Which I note have been added since my article was put in for deletion) Ashbury park press only gives one line - but it's still a line which backs up the point he is working with this particular group. Whether it is one line or a page it still backs the point up. Also in the case of this particular point, the play is scheduled this month and so maybe there will be more information available then. I'm also not sure about goarticles.com. Why doesn't this count? I'm not trying to be rude, far from - I just want more clarification into why some of these don't count. How is this self promotion?

I have also added several more cites. One for IMDB as I've noticed when reading about articles for deletion that IMDB is a credible source. I hope this helps in resolving the matter. I also ask with the writer above for advice on how to improve this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JackHowardFacts (talk • contribs) 15:14, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First off, my apology for missing the listing at Short+Sweet; I'd made the mistake of searching for Robert Scott rather than the play name, and thus missed this page... but as that page makes clear, the awarding of a wildcard slot is just means it was the play from that day's performances that was chosen to move on to the finals, it is not an award across the entire festival.

My discussion above is about the notability of the subject as demonstrated by the sources. So the APP sources is perfectly acceptable as a source for information, but being mentioned in one sentence does not indicate any real notability, it's not what we call significant coverage. We also consider self-published sources (including ones done through some sort of automatic publishing system without presumed editorial control) not to be real indicators of notability, because any one person with no real weight behind them can post them. (Also, if you click on these words right here, you'll see an explanation that we absolutely bar self-published sources from being used in biographies of living people (with the exception of the subject making noncontroversial claims about themself.) That's what the Goarticles source qualifies as, a self-published source. The question of whether NODA counts goes to trying to establish notability under the guidelines for notability of creative folks such as authors, to see if they qualify under #3: "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." NODA does not appear to be a periodical. I hope that this clarifies some of what I was saying above for you. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:46, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback. I have edited the page and taken out go-articles as I now understand what you mean. I've also added a significant number of newspaper articles for more notability. (Also as earlier mentioned I have added IMDB notability too). Hope this helps. JackHowardFacts (talk) 14:54, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More notability given by online newspapers and magazines. JackHowardFacts (talk) 15:24, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a case to be made on notability, it's in the Derby Telegraph material. Many of the other items added are simply event listings, which are fine for showing that something exists but doesn't show it's of import. IMDb listings are understood not to confer notability, as they are a database and seek to list everyone with a credit on projects within their purview. (Also, its ability to have users submit information keeps it from being considered a proper reliable source.) I have not yet taken the time to look into the Telegraph to see if this is a regional paper that carries some weight, or just a local paper doing a "hometown boy makes good" type of story. (I would appreciate any fellow experienced Wikipedia editors taking the time to voice their views on that.)

I also find curious the number of editors whose edits seem to have focused solely on Robert Scott. I would like to recommend that such editors review Wikipedia's guidelines on conflicts of interest, and if a conflict does exist, that the editors declare their conflict. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:02, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam ^Sing! 11:27, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:14, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Inflated, and poorly sourced. I do not see notability per our guidelines here. Drmies (talk) 03:39, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If the company he runs (Medusa Theatre group) were written up, or if he or one of his plays was written up in a newspaper other than the hometown Derby Telegraph, or if he had lengthy profiles on the pages of theaters more notable than the Medusa (the small company theater he apparently helped establish in Derby in 2011) then... but as is, not.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:18, 27 February 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.