Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeremy Hoad
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 keep - there seems to be consensus that the claim to notability is good enough, and I'm not seeing a problem with verifiability. The stub could be considered unverified, true, but being unverifiable is what gets articles deleted; the fact that this man wrote The Blue Angel and is a lecturer is clearly verifiable. --Sam Blanning(talk) 00:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jeremy Hoad[edit]
A non-notable university lecturer, who seems to have a page for no other reason than that he once co-wrote a single Doctor Who novel. Angmering 19:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Theres no notablility there Clamster5 19:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per nom.Victoriagirl 19:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Given the minutaie of Doctor Who which is considered notable on Wikipedia and the current massive popularity of the TV show, I can't see how being the co-author of one of the most popular and, conversely, most controversial, Doctor Who novels is non-notable. StuartDouglas
- Comment - I don't know that every single author of books in the Dr. Who series warrants an article. However, given StuartDouglas' post I may be convinced to reconsider my vote. As it stands, nothing in this entry (nor that for The Blue Angel) indicates that the novel was more popular or controversial than any other in the series. Victoriagirl 18:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - It also remains the only Who novel to have been dramatised [[1]] and has generated at least one spin-off by a recognised and published author [[2]]
- Comment - I'm not suggesting the information above is irrelevant - but let's be accurate. It would appear that the dramatisation of the novel, available for view on a fan site, has never been performed. The "spin-off" is a short story contained in a small press publication described as an "unofficial collection of wild variations on the theme of Doctor Who". Neither project would do much to strengthen the entry on Mr Hoad (indeed they aren't mentioned in what remains a very weak one sentence entry). That said, both pieces of information should be added to the Blue Angel article. Victoriagirl 18:03, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - indeed. I'm not aware of any evidence that The Blue Angel is either notably popular or controversial. Angmering 19:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - For instances of both controversy and popularity see the Jade Pagoda Yahoo [[3]] lists extensive public archives, the various reviews on Outpost Gallifrey [[4]] and the rather notorious review of the book here [[5]]StuartDouglas
- Comment - while that's certainly all good notability for the book, I'm not sure it adds to the Hoad article. At the moment there's nothing in his single-line article that couldn't be covered with a note on the book's page. Angmering 14:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I take your point and the book article could certainly do with being beefed up a bit (there's no mention of the fuss caused by the Doctor being portrayed as homosexual in the book for a start), but it would seem odd to put details about the author in the book article rather than in a linked article on the author (as with other authors).
- Comment - The point is that, unless he writes something more at some point or does something else of note, his article is unlikely ever to expand beyond the single line description currently there. Which frankly seems like a bit of a waste of time. Angmering 18:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Is there a need for more than one book to qualify under WP:BIO - i.e "Published authors, [...]who received multiple independent reviews of [...] their work" - there have certainly been numerous independent reviews of the book and he may well write more in the future?
- Comment - Is there a need? Not at all. However, being the author (co-author, in this case) of a title that has been reviewed doesn't necessarily mean the subject is worthy of an article. After all, the above quotation from WP:BIO is preceded by "People who satisfy at least one of the items below may merit their own Wikipedia articles..." (emphasis mine). I think it likely that the subject will write more books, but this is speculation and falls under WP:NOT. That said, I recognize that Blue Angel was published in September 1999. Victoriagirl 20:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Fair enough. I can't think of anything further to add - the popularity (as evinced by the fact that it has generated some form of spin-offery and conversion to another medium, as well as multiple reviews and general ongoing discussion) and notoriety of the book seem enough to qualify for inclusion of the author to me, (possibly also worth noting his publications with the National Postgraduate Council [[6]] about which, I admit, I know nothing other than their existence) but I may well be in a minority.StuartDouglas
- Comment - Is there a need? Not at all. However, being the author (co-author, in this case) of a title that has been reviewed doesn't necessarily mean the subject is worthy of an article. After all, the above quotation from WP:BIO is preceded by "People who satisfy at least one of the items below may merit their own Wikipedia articles..." (emphasis mine). I think it likely that the subject will write more books, but this is speculation and falls under WP:NOT. That said, I recognize that Blue Angel was published in September 1999. Victoriagirl 20:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Is there a need for more than one book to qualify under WP:BIO - i.e "Published authors, [...]who received multiple independent reviews of [...] their work" - there have certainly been numerous independent reviews of the book and he may well write more in the future?
- Comment - The point is that, unless he writes something more at some point or does something else of note, his article is unlikely ever to expand beyond the single line description currently there. Which frankly seems like a bit of a waste of time. Angmering 18:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I take your point and the book article could certainly do with being beefed up a bit (there's no mention of the fuss caused by the Doctor being portrayed as homosexual in the book for a start), but it would seem odd to put details about the author in the book article rather than in a linked article on the author (as with other authors).
- Comment - while that's certainly all good notability for the book, I'm not sure it adds to the Hoad article. At the moment there's nothing in his single-line article that couldn't be covered with a note on the book's page. Angmering 14:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - For instances of both controversy and popularity see the Jade Pagoda Yahoo [[3]] lists extensive public archives, the various reviews on Outpost Gallifrey [[4]] and the rather notorious review of the book here [[5]]StuartDouglas
- Comment - It also remains the only Who novel to have been dramatised [[1]] and has generated at least one spin-off by a recognised and published author [[2]]
- Comment - I don't know that every single author of books in the Dr. Who series warrants an article. However, given StuartDouglas' post I may be convinced to reconsider my vote. As it stands, nothing in this entry (nor that for The Blue Angel) indicates that the novel was more popular or controversial than any other in the series. Victoriagirl 18:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, has written written several DR Who books published by the BBC; other non-vanity publications include Strange Boy which was apparently covered by the Guardian [7], the Observer Review and the Independent. [8]. If this wasn't an obvious keep, it would be mergeable with the book. Kappa 09:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Erm... the books you mention and the links you provide all refer to Paul Magrs, who is apparently Hoad's partner, not Hoad himself. Angmering 09:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oops. Keep or merge with the book, or partner/co-author Paul Magrs. Kappa
- Comment - Erm... the books you mention and the links you provide all refer to Paul Magrs, who is apparently Hoad's partner, not Hoad himself. Angmering 09:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Unless there's a general view that Doctor Who articles are proliferating out of hand, Hoad is notable for his contribution to the series' spinoff fiction, which as Stuart suggests is significant. The idea that the article be merged with the Paul Magrs or Blue Angel articles tends to minimise the contribution that a co-author makes to a book: co-authorship is a very different process from ordinary writing, and Magrs has said that the two of them wrote every line together. As far as I'm aware it's Magrs's only such collaboration, which is arguably significant in itself given his profile outside the Doctor Who arena as a respected literary (and young adult) author, teacher of creative writing etc. I can see arguments for expanding both this and the Blue Angel article, but not for deleting Hoad now he's here. Phil PH 08:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep Co-writing one Who novel seems of marginal notability to me, but I like to err on the side of including articles and, heaven knows, there are literally >100 Doctor Who articles on more obscure topics. However, there isn't much point in having a separate article if it is never going to grow beyond the current stub. So keep if the article gets expanded, or merge with The Blue Angel or Paul Magrs otherwise. Bondegezou 09:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep per Bondegezou. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Phil PH, co-authoring a Who novel amonst other publications meets our WP:BIO test for notability. RFerreira 00:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't want to appear difficult, but I am wondering what other publications are being referred to here. I see no sign that the subject has done more than co-author a seven year-old Dr Who novel. If he has indeed written other work, it is possible that there would never have been a nomination for deletion in the first place. Should they exist, I suggest that information on other books be added to the article - it can only serve to strengthen. Victoriagirl 18:38, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Comment' This is possibly a reference to my mention of "his publications with the National Postgraduate Council" above, although it could also be referring to his journalism for The Times, Guardian, Independent etc or his publication in academic magazines, all of which can be verified by a quick Google search StuartDouglas 09:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I suppose we can't really know to what RFerreira was referring. That said, I don't think co-written contributions to the website of the National Postgraduate Committee, "a charity to advance, in the public interest, postgraduate education in the UK", speak to notability. Mr Hoad's articles in The Guardian are few and far between (four short pieces on education since 2000). I'm afraid I cannot find any Hoad contributions to The independent or The Times (at least not archived at www.independent.co.uk and www.timesonline.co.uk). I think the issue of notabiility rests on the co-authorship of a Dr Who novel published seven years ago. Not really enough to these eyes.Victoriagirl 17:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I agree that the novel is the claim to notability, but obviously disagree on your conclusion re same StuartDouglas 18:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I suppose we can't really know to what RFerreira was referring. That said, I don't think co-written contributions to the website of the National Postgraduate Committee, "a charity to advance, in the public interest, postgraduate education in the UK", speak to notability. Mr Hoad's articles in The Guardian are few and far between (four short pieces on education since 2000). I'm afraid I cannot find any Hoad contributions to The independent or The Times (at least not archived at www.independent.co.uk and www.timesonline.co.uk). I think the issue of notabiility rests on the co-authorship of a Dr Who novel published seven years ago. Not really enough to these eyes.Victoriagirl 17:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Comment' This is possibly a reference to my mention of "his publications with the National Postgraduate Council" above, although it could also be referring to his journalism for The Times, Guardian, Independent etc or his publication in academic magazines, all of which can be verified by a quick Google search StuartDouglas 09:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per StuartDouglas - hotblack
- Delete Tenuous claim at notability isn't even sourced. ~ trialsanderrors 03:52, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Sorry - where and what isn't sourced? Could you be just a little more precise please?StuartDouglas 09:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Uhh, the article is about two lines long and has zero sources. How much more precise do I need to be? ~ trialsanderrors 15:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Given that this discussion revolves largely round whether co-authorship of the Doctor Who novel The Blue Angel confers notability, are you suggesting that he didn't co-write that book or that some source other than the cover of the novel on the novel's entry is required? Presumably not - so a little more precise than you were, frankly. StuartDouglas 15:50, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not talking about WP:V, I'm talking about the missing sources that establish the claims to notability, of which there are two here: 1. he co-authoried a book; and 2. he's a university lecturer. Both things should be easy to verify, but verifiability doesn't establish notability. The book, btw, isn't sourced either. ~ trialsanderrors 16:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Possibly I'm being dumb, but the claim to notability (largely of the novel and Hoad's co-writing of it) is what we're discussing here. Sources for same are quoted in this discussion. I'll go look up some sources for the lecturer part if it'll make you happy though StuartDouglas 18:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Actually, given that he's co-author of the only Who novel (to the best of my knowledge) being taught as a University text [[9]], isn't that enough in itself to confer notability? StuartDouglas 10:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Is this novel actually being taught as a university text, or did it serve as the basis of a script that is expected to be presented to students of a course in costume design in May 2007? Might this be crystal ball? Either way, I don't think it speaks to the notability. Victoriagirl 17:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't think the course is crystal ball in that the course is definitely taking place (I mailed the lecturer and asked him) and regardless of actual use of the text I would also argue that its use in any context does add to its notability, given its uniqueness in that respect StuartDouglas 18:02, 18 September 2006 (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.