Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Blagg (2nd nomination)

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. Randykitty (talk) 15:38, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Blagg[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Non-notable individual; biography not pass the muster at WP:BIO and WP:GNG. There is not sufficient WP:SIGCOV as is required. There are two sources with substantive coverage, but both are direct interviews with the subject and hence cannot be considered "independent of the subject" (see WP:BIO) — The Daily Beast – [1], and Fast Company – [2]. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 20:19, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:43, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:43, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:44, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:44, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:45, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete interviews do not establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:46, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:CREATIVE #3 for his involvement in many shows, e.g. @midnight which won Emmy (therefore may also qualify under WP:ANYBIO), Betas, Problematic with Moshe Kasher. There are more information on him apart from those given in the article. Sources on the person - [3][4][5] as well as those given already - there is also no mention of not using interview in WP:BIO, read instead WP:INTERVIEW on when interviews might be considered secondary, independent and reliable (note that per WP:GNG, using sources independent of the subject is about not using sources that are produced by the subject or people affiliated with the subject). Hzh (talk) 12:27, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per last post as he passes WP:ANYBIO with the Emmy win as confirmed in muktiple reliable sources coverage so deserves to be kept in the encyclopedia Atlantic306 (talk) 12:49, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hzh and Atlantic306: Thanks very much for your comments. I would like to offer rebuttals to your points above, and propose that you may please reconsider your opinion. WP:CREATIVE#3 says: 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 primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. As Blagg is the co-creator of @midnight and Problematic with Moshe Kasher, he can certainly be said to have played a major role in co-creating the work. However, while the notability of the work (i.e. @midnight or Problematic with Moshe Kasher) is not under dispute, these cannot be said to be the same thing as being "significant or well-known work[s] or collective body of work[s]" in any sense.
However, even if we assume, in arguendo, that the additional criteria as provided under WP:CREATIVE#3 have been met, this would still remain a "special case" in accordance with WP:BLP, as it is yet to be shown that the conditions for notability as set in WP:BIO and WP:GNG have been met, specifically in terms of the subject having achieved "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." In such cases, BLP policy recommends that the articles may be merged "into a broader article providing context."
Similarly, the subject does not qualify under the terms of WP:ANYBIO either as he is not personally the recipient of the said awards. The recipient of the award is the show called @midnight, which is the achievement of a collective body rather than a singular individual. Furthermore, the involvement of of Blagg in Betas cannot be characterized as significant as he has only authored one of the episodes. The additional criteria on WP:BIO are not meant to trump the basic conditions for notability as defined under WP:BIO and WP:GNG, they are simply meant as guidance for users considering notability for the subjects concerned. As WP:BLP notes: People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included.
The three sources that you have cited in your comment above do not seem to indicate significant coverage for the individual so as to create a presumption of notability under WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Analysis: (1) The article in the Nation quotes Blag a couple of times, but he is not the subject of discussion, nor does he receive any SIGCOV — [6]; (2) similarly, the book "Sincerity After Communism" does not demonstrate SIGCOV for the subject either — [7]; (3) the third book called "Communication de crise et médias sociaux" is not available online, but I suspect that there would not be anything resembling SIGCOV in this publication either. In any event, the onus is upon you to definitively prove SIGCOV by assisting participants in this discussion to review a publicly unavailable publication.
As far as WP:INTERVIEW is concerned, I'm not sure which portion it is that you are referring to. From what I can see, the section covering "notability" says the opposite of what you have asserted above. I have quoted relevant portions of this section below for your perusal:

Within the broad concept of notability are various sub-guidelines, including the general notability guideline. There we have a specific definition requiring that others not connected with the subject take note and that they do so by offering their own secondary thoughts in reliable sources. Under this definition, anything interviewees say about themselves or their own work is both primary and non-independent. If it's primary and non-independent, our guidelines make clear that it does not contribute to notability.

An independent interviewer represents the "world at large" giving attention to the subject, and as such, interviews as a whole contribute to the basic concept of notability. The material provided to the interview by the interviewer and the publication is secondary. The material provided by the interviewee may be primary, if the interviewee is speaking about his own life, or may be secondary, if the interviewee is recognized as an expert on the subject being reported.

I hope the above is useful. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 18:57, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is interesting that you ignored what's written in WP:SIGCOV that the subject need not be the main topic of the sources given, that there are not passing mentions, and then simply assert that it is not SIGCOV (therefore what you said is contrary to what is given in SIGCOV). I don't see anything useful you said apart from trying to dismiss anything that contradict your claim, for example dismissing an award winning work (a work that wins a major award is by its nature significant). I can also see the source perfectly fine, which is about him as a social media guru. Please don't dismiss sources you can't see for whatever reason. They are valid sources that show that the subject has received attention by the wider world. Hzh (talk) 19:57, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:04, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nominator, and John. —usernamekiran(talk) 05:41, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:42, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Hzh and Atlantic306. Mosaicberry (talk • contribs) 11:09, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete While @midnight was a notable show and all... these sources don’t do what is needed to properly assert individual notability. Least of all the New York Times—that one should have never been added. Trillfendi (talk) 16:42, 29 April 2019 (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.