Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Fiske-Harrison

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. MBisanz talk 03:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Fiske-Harrison[edit]

Alexander Fiske-Harrison (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Found no "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". Many hits on Google, but most are either articles by the subject, passing mentions, or his own account at various sites. --aktsu (t / c) 19:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are right of course, you did more than participate - my mistake. AFD is not about the quality of the article, but if you're notable enough to have an article in the first place. Did some formatting on your entry, hope you don't mind. --aktsu (t / c) 20:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Absolute madness. Press all over the place. --Bigjimedge (talk) 21:03, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article reads more like a resume than an encyclopedia. That means that the subject is listing everything concievable that he did in an attempt to try to prove that he is notable, but notability isn't inherited from his projects. I fail to see independant third party sources describing him in detail. He can publish a million pages of stuff but unless a significant body of work is published about him, than he fails the notability guidelines. If for some reason the article is kept, it would have to be pruned and watched over, since it's pretty obvious that it's being used as a tool for promoting the subject. Themfromspace (talk) 06:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete It's such a shame that some people feel the need to create articles on themselves. I had a go at editing the article in a minor way yesterday but I do feel that there is insufficient independent third party sources currently available. Paste Let’s have a chat. 13:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The requirements of WP:BIO for people in the entertainment field are quite strict, and I don't believe they are met. The article spending so much of its time on minor details of this person's life doesn't help the case. Here is what we expect for 'creative professionals':
  1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors.
  2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
  3. The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.EdJohnston (talk) 21:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re-edit & Important Comment I feel some responsibility for this situation as I said to Fh he should put up a page on his play and himself. This has led to this situation. He did not ask me to put up a page on his play, but when I said he should, he merely returned the statement. So I did. I have now completely re-written the page in his name, focussing on two points of notability - the play, and the essay on bullfighting which has been immensely controversial, although he notably has failed to mention that. I actually met him at the magazine for which it was written (no COI, I am not employed by them) and the editor said it was the most commented on article they have ever printed.
You are still editing with a conflict of interest because you know the subject personally. Wikipedia articles are not supposed to be edited majorly by people who know the subjects. Editing with a COI is a very bad idea because its almost impossible to maintain a neutral point of view when you know the subject personally. This artile wouldn't exist if it wasn't for the conflict of interest. There is no doubt that this article promotes the subject as Wikipedia is a very popular website and any potential employer will see his resume here. In that way, this article is financially connected to him and having a person close to him create and edit it is against the spirit of WP:NPOV, a conflict of interest, and an overall bad idea. Themfromspace (talk) 12:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, that's there the claim 'most commented on article' came from, which I've deleted. dougweller (talk) 12:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't true. I have met the subject on one occasion, having prior to that seen the play and read the Prospect essay. If I do have a COI it's with my own conscience for causing this furore. NB The 'most commented on' was pointed out to me by the editor of Prospect, however, it is easy to establish by comparison. I cannot find a single entry with even close to 118 comments. --Bigjimedge (talk) 12:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
However saying "Compare for yourself" puts it firmly in the realm of original research which isn't allowed on wikipedia. If you had a third party reference pointing this out, from a reliable source, then that would be acceptable. Even then 118 comments is very probably not notable in itself, it just shows a very slow blog. --Blowdart | talk 12:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Having raised the obvious conflict of issues over at WP:COI and being accused of having some personal issue and not having the faintest idea what I'm talking about I've been staying out of this one, until I started looking at some of the references. The acting references do not prove notability. One had no mention of Fiske at all, and the rest are in passing mentions, his name in brackets beside the character name and no comments on his ability. The only notable thing appears to be his bullfighting essay, which has been reprinted in another newspaper and mentioned on a blog. Even then it doesn't met WP:BIO --Blowdart | talk 12:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I've done no such thing. I removed one reference which did not mention you at all, removed references about your self penned play as they're already on the play's page and pointed out that the other acting references mention you as a cast member, but do not provide any comment on you beyond that. That's the nice thing about references, people can see for themselves. As for the removal of bits from The Pendulum - A Tragedy of 1900 Vienna, well posting the inside of the programme is not encyclopaedic to me and adds nothing to the article. But that's another discussion. As for it is necessary to provide the commentary yourself no it's not, not unless they are simple factual statements, as ever see WP:COI --Blowdart | talk 15:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strictly speaking you have. Your comment suggests that there are no comments on the acting on *this* page, but you personally removed the only references from *this* page which commented on the acting, whether they remain elsewhere or not. NB you find no notability where Geordie Greig, David Goodhart and Michael Billington, among others, all have. --Bigjimedge (talk) 18:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Other stuff exists is not an excuse for non-deletion; the people you choose are notable for their positions of editors of major magazines. As it is I removed reference already in the play article, which is linked too from the person. There's no need to duplicate like this. This is rapidly descended into WP:TEAMWORK. I assume by *this* page you mean the article itself, rather than the deletion debate. I've left the "in passing" references more to demonstrate the weakness of them than anything else. And finally, please remember to sign your posts. --Blowdart | talk 17:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am only in this conversation because, as the instigator, I feel some responsibility. Thus WP:TEAMWORK is inapplicable. You also do not follow my point. I am not saying the subject is like the people mentioned, but that they have deemed him notable in their own work, where you have not.--Bigjimedge (talk) 18:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recap I have rewritten this article and believe its subject stands as notable because of his creation of and participation in the work The Pendulum - A Tragedy of 1900 Vienna in combination with his journalistic output which has resulted in the international controversy surrounding his essay for Prospect magazine on bullfighting. I have no COI, because, although I have met the subject on one occasion, briefly, he is certainly not friend, family or fellow community member. Nor have I been asked to perform this task, but rather suggested it myself, and as the various issues generated by your rules and regulations have become clear, have taken on the responsibility of execution - which is as it should be (and what I should have done from the first).--Bigjimedge (talk) 19:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment By international controversy I am guessing you mean that various blogs based in other countries discussed the article, which was on a controversial subject in any case, no matter what he wrote. His journalistic work still seems pretty minor, just a few articles. The only possible basis for notability seems his authorship of a play which had only a short run and 'mixed reviews'. dougweller (talk) 19:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I meant being reprinted in India and being interviewed on Al-Jazeera, alongside the dozen blogs around the world, yes. Obviously, this is not all his articles. This is not a personal site or repository for work.--Bigjimedge (talk) 19:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete IMHO, the subject does not meet notability standards based on WP:BIO, as he is neither well-known nor widely cited. The page doesn't contribute to Wikipedia's goals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TeeRebel (talk • contribs) 09:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've done a bit of formatting and clean-up and sources do indeed seem to have been added so this subject meets GNG if one combines the writing and acting bits. -- Banjeboi 03:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further info "In a web-exclusive review for Prospect this week, actor and writer Alexander Fiske-Harrison returns to the fertile topic of animal psychology and ethics that he explored in his much-noted essay for Prospect on bull-fighting (a piece which sparked one of the most in-depth discussions ever to feature on this blog)." from today's Prospect magazine website--Fiskeharrison (talk) 02:09, 22 January 2009 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alexander_Fiske-Harrison&oldid=1137552211"