Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Craig Graham (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. All we seem to agree on is that this is a borderline case in terms of notability. Sandstein 09:18, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Graham[edit]

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

1. no sources on the person - notability is not inherited - fails WP:AUTHOR / WP:GNG . (independent of AfD, creator has WP:COI ) 2. advert Widefox; talk 15:57, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Propose to WP:userfy (2nd time). Widefox; talk 14:39, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Weak keep - I realise it was me that added the 'notability' tag, so I probably err in favour of deletion. However, notability is inherited if something you personally create (a book, an artwork, a film etc.) is widely reviewed/written about. Producers and directors are a grey area in my view, because TV programmes are generally a team effort. Graham's book are co-authored and seem not to have attracted much attention. However, The Age article describes Graham's process in creating his series, Border Security; if there was more news coverage like this I'd be inclined to argue for a 'weak keep'. It's very borderline indeed at the moment. Sionk (talk) 16:40, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Don't think we even have a reference for the DOB, or other bio data. The theage source is primary - his words.

There's only incidental mention of the person in TV listings etc. I also agree with the comment at Talk:Craig Graham - why was this accepted from AfC? This is the same WP:SPA WP:COI creator from the previous AfD that has correctly recreated via userfication - the article and its photo has been created by a digital PR company he works with (that had to change username due to username violation), but has not disclosed this COI on her new account. Widefox; talk 09:34, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed my recommendation to 'Weak keep' after finding a long complimentary 2012 news article in The Age. There is an evident link between Graham's skill and creative input and the success of his TV documentaries. The WP article still needs cleaning up, all the same! Sionk (talk) 11:27, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

not sure that helps with notability - a primary source per WP:AUTHOR / WP:GNG (interview about a TV programme). No bio info for a BLP, but very useful if we had multiple secondaries, and the programme does look notable. Widefox; talk 14:32, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure a news article that quotes Graham constitutes an "interview". In fact I'm sure it doesn't by any normal interpretation! Sionk (talk) 01:53, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 10:54, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 01:38, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep with some details. After the first AfD, this was userfied. The article seems to be better now, but it was a number of issues which the nominator brought up. Still, the news article coupled with inherited notability makes me uncomfortable with simply deleting it or even userfying it again. It really seems like a notable subject with a flawed article in need of someone putting forth the time to research and write. I suggest this: let's keep it for now with a specified time limit. If the article is not improved in terms of asserting and sourcing notability by that time - let's say two weeks from now or something - then we nominate it again for one last time and all of us concerned (Sionk and Widefox) agree to all give a strong recommendation for final deletion. If notability is asserted and sourced by that time, then we leave it. Does this sound like a good way to just settle it? It's already been nominated before so it seems like a somewhat contentious article. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:05, 10 April 2013 (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.