Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Howard Fredrics

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. The dispute is mentioned in the University's article, and the consensus is that there is not enough other notability here for a stand-alone article on the person. JohnCD (talk) 20:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Howard Fredrics[edit]

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

This is a classic WP:BLP1E article. Fredrics is notable only in the context of his dispute with Kingston University, that article is currently protected due to an ongoing edit war related to this same event and so I suspect that this article is an offshoot of that. The whole incident. including those involved in it, probably deserve no more than 1-2 paragraphs tops at the Kingston University article. Thryduulf (talk) 00:07, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 00:07, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 00:07, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I, as article creator, have no involvement in the dispute or any previous edits on the subject. You assumed incorrectly. Francium12 00:32, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Poorly written WP:BLP1E. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:32, 6 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Keep and rename to cover dispute. A merge with the main Kingston article sounds okay too. But deleting this notable dispute doesn't seem like a good option. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:48, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not proposing to delete the dispute, I'm saying it doesn't need a standalone article and can be, and basically was (at least last time I read that section of the Kingston University article in detail), covered in sufficient detail at the main article. I wouldn't object to a merge, but there's pretty much nothing encyclopaedic to merge so I don't see the point. Thryduulf (talk) 03:19, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The dates of the news coverage does suggest a BLP 1-E type situation. How about a targeted redirect to the section in the main article since it already has a seciton there? It can be protected if necessary. I see there's been some edit warring? ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:49, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.The subject does not warrant a separate article - his artistic work has little significance within the music world, and much of the content is concerning a failed dispute with his ex Employer. The content is not independently verifiable at present being largely hearsay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jim Laker (talk • contribs) 15:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A rather sweeping statement for refer to someone with Emmy Award winning work, Fulbright grants, reviews of his work in media, publications and publications in journals. I might have a go improving this article if someone can prevent people with a COI of interest editing it. The edit history of User:Jim Laker is interesting! It seems this topic is the only topic he edits on! Francium12 16:31, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still waiting for a source other than the subject's own webpage for this Emmy business. There are articles calling him "Emmy award winning" but details are scarce and he seems to be missing from all the Emmy databases I can find. There are several kinds of Emmys given out by different organizations, some of them (like "regional Emmys") probably fall below the standard for notability. Hairhorn (talk) 05:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

evidence? - oddly enough, the website for the folks for whom he supposedly got that Emmy doesn't list it among their "Awards", even though they list every little "regional Emmy" and even the Telly Awards they've received! --Orange Mike | Talk 03:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and allow User:Francium12 to expand and diversify the article, thus resolving Xxanthippe's poorly written misgivings. Yes Jim Laker has an "interesting" edit history.--Penbat (talk) 18:53, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per a combination of WP:V and WP:BLP issues. There are WP:V difficulties with trying to verify the claim of having won an Emmy which is sourced to the subject's CV. However, there does not seem to be an independent confirmation of this. It was definitely not a Primetime Emmy as the search of the award database there[1] produces no results. His CV says that the Emmy was for a theme to the BBC series Texas Parks And Wildlife. However, IMDB does not have a listing for such a series[2] and it does not have an entry for Fredrics either[3]. So the Emmy claim looks rather suspicious. Apart from that, I don't see much evidence of academic, musical or biographic notability. Most of the coverage relates to the Kingston University controversy and is largely negative and contentious in nature. The amount of coverage is fairly modest (several newsstories), which is not sufficient to overcome BLP concerns here. Nsk92 (talk) 01:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (unless substantially expanded with proper citations on natability issues). At present the article is about an academic with limited notability and in dipsute with his employer. Accordingly he seems NN, according to what is said at present. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SUMMARY. Dispute w/ Kingston University is worth discussing, but parent article doesn't merit full details, per WP:WEIGHT. The bio by itself only borderline meets WP:AUTH, but as an organizational matter, it is by far best to keep it to allow dispute discussion at sufficient length. LotLE×talk 19:11, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Nsk92. JBsupreme (talk) 06:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -non-notable bio of minor academic, padded with self-puffery and marginal WP:BLP1E notoriety. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per LotLE Francium12 23:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Kingston University or Delete. As it is, this is basically a BLP1E; I've looked at the sources, and searched for more, but I'm not convinced notability has been established independent of the dispute with Kingston University. So, this article is best covered as a subsection of that one; in fact, it's already mentioned there in the 'Controversies' section. If this article is kept, I would at least suggest that it be renamed to be an article about the dispute instead of the person. Robofish (talk) 14:50, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. His output and activities as a musician seem negligible. His output and activities as an academic seem negligible. His major notability seems to be that of complainer about harassment, irritant, and winner of a dispute over a domain name. Merge some of this into the article on Kingston University? No, because it tells us nothing about the university except that at least one of its previous employees was unhappy there and (it appears) turned his displeasure into an occupation. That article already has an entire subsection titled "World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) Complaint" in which we read that "Sir Peter Scott, Vice-Chancellor of Kingston University filed a formal complaint" over this; there's no indication in the article that this was a university matter, and the paragraph ends limply with the statement that our man Fredrics "was found guilty of harrassing [sic] Sir Peter Scott through the use of the above website", again no mention of the university. ¶ Yes, there is something odd about Kingston University: it seems to attract the strangest tolerance in en:WP for molehill magnification (or just pottiness). Consider the way that a lengthy passage within the article by one Francois Greeff about the same Francois Greeff lasted not for a day but for half a year. Or indeed this excited article on a Kingston "controversy". -- Hoary (talk) 12:22, 13 February 2010 (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.