Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moray Laing

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 Consensus to delete determined by Drmies. GB fan please review my editing 17:43, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moray Laing[edit]

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

notability is not established, article contains no reliable secondary sources/references. Warfieldian (talk) 11:37, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Comment (disclosure: I created the article) I agree that the single source I originally cited was unreliable, but I'm surprised that the references I added were not sufficient to address this (Warfieldian, I'd be interested in your critique/comments on the sources I did post, for my own learning benefit). Nevertheless I'm fully aware of the need for great care with WP:BLP so thank you for flagging this and holding us to the right standards. I added the article as a stub because this author's name arose repeatedly in several other articles I was working on, and I felt that readers of those articles might reasonably want to know more about Laing. The overall case for notability is perhaps borderline, but after discovering that Laing was not only author of various Doctor Who books but also editor of the magazine for several years, appeared in documentaries, and was interviewed in connection with David Tennant's departure from the Doctor Who series I felt that on balance the subject was notable. I have done what I can with sources, including adding a few more just now (perhaps it's starting to look rather overdone, but I'm hoping that at least one or two will be considered satisfactory for WP purposes). My hope in creating a stub was that other editors with more access to relevant sources and subject expertise would be able to fill it out to the appropriate degree. mooncow 17:17, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Thanks for your comments. I am a fan of the Dr. Who Series as well. I just don't see this person as notable based on the general notability criteria WP:N or even the additional criteria for authors,WP:AUTHOR. None of the references link to reliable secondary sources that offer significant or in depth coverage of the subject. I didn't see much in a Google search that would supplement these references so I don't think there is much to build an article on even if we was sufficiently notable. Possibly this article might be merged as a brief mention into another suitable article on Dr. Who? Warfieldian (talk) 18:42, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not so familiar with the Doctor Who side of it, which was why I just filled out a stub. Where might such a mention go? Perhaps into Doctor Who Adventures, if that's his most prominent accomplishment. mooncow 19:05, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Moon -- I understand your intent, and laud you for your effort. My view, after looking at the sources and for others, is as I reflected below. (BTW -- I think at least one of the refs should be deleted post-haste, as it is a wiki, and we never use wikis as refs). I think that if the article is deleted (which at this point seems likely, IMHO ... you might even if discussion continues as it has been going consider withdrawal/merge as an option), a mention as you suggest in Doctor Who Adventures might indeed make sense. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:42, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—the article lists a great many sources but exceptionally little actual content. That is rather telling. Because each of the sources tends to simply be an exceptionally dull one-sentence passing mention of this so-called person. There is clearly no significant coverage involved because Laing has not been discussed directly and in detail as an individual. ╟─Treasury Tag►condominium─╢ 18:42, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Not as telling as you suggest — I deliberately kept the article very short and non-controversial and marked it as a stub, to encourage others who know more to add more. Your point about the sources is valid though: maybe there isn't much more to write... mooncow 19:05, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are missing the point. Has this person been covered in significant detail in multiple reliable sources? Yes or no? ╟─Treasury Tag►Syndic General─╢ 19:12, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not missing the point: I am intentionally avoiding it ;-) I really have no idea what sources there might be. Writers of Doctor Who fiction is really not my area of expertise. True, a casual search for on-line sources did not produce much, which is why I created a stub for better-informed people to expand upon. If better-informed people agree there are in fact no better sources and nothing notable to write, that is fine. Thank you. mooncow 19:29, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If your only reason for keeping the article is that there may be sources out there and the subject may be notable, but you are unable to be more specific, then you may wish to review WP:ATA. ╟─Treasury Tag►contemnor─╢ 19:48, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep BBC, Times, Guardian. WP:NOTPAPER WP:NOTFINISHED. Not everyone can have as much written about himself as Anna Nicole Smith. That doesn't mean they should be excluded from a comprehensive encyclopedia. μηδείς (talk) 18:55, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Now, I noticed you just mentioned The Grauniad – the only source of theirs listed in the article is this and I find it hard to believe that someone as experienced as you genuinely considers it to be significant coverage. All it says is, "Moray Laing is a Doctor Who aficionado and editor of Doctor Who Adventures, published by BBC Magazines. He lives in London." Does that qualify as detailed? I think not. You also mentioned Murdoch's Rag – let me quote what it says. "Doctor Who Adventures editor Moray Laing will be taking part." That's it. Clearly not significant coverage, and I'm rather confused as to why you said it was. ╟─Treasury Tag►constablewick─╢ 18:59, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Leaning delete, as all I see so far are passing mentions. But I would like to see if anyone can provide the GNG level of substantial RS coverage called for by GNG.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:07, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
GNG? Speak English or provide a link. Wikipedia is not a cant-bound project for an inside clique. μηδείς (talk) 02:30, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you mean, "I'm not quite sure what the GNG is; please could you link to it?" then WP:GNG is (unsurprisingly...) the go-to page. If you just wanted to be rude, on the other hand, then WP:CIV might be more apt. ╟─Treasury Tag►prorogation─╢ 07:49, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I would have liked to !vote otherwise, and initially thought I would when I noticed the number and quality of sources. But, upon inspection of the refs, I just can't get around the fact that they are bare passing mentions. That falls short of what we require under our notability guidelines.

As far as WP:NOTFINISHED is concerned, first of all that is only an essay that contains the opinion of one or more editors, and is not a Wikipedia policy. Secondly, it does not stand for the notion that "I'm not finished -- don't delete this article because maybe one day it will meet wp's notability guidelines". The article has to meet our notability guidelines now. Should an article fail to meet our notability guidelines, it can of course be re-created with refs reflecting its notability at such future time as it meets them. Reading this essay otherwise would mean that no articles would ever be deleted at AfD.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:25, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment—it seems that at least one editor still thinks that the sources are adequate, so I'm going to go through them in turn. Amazon is not a source at all, because it doesn't discuss this person as a person at all, merely sells their books. Nice try though. Wikia is self-published and thus not reliable. The BBC is a deadlink. This is a five-word mention which in no way constitutes significant coverage. The Press Gazette features Mr Laing making a short, one-sentence comment on the readership of his magazine. It doesn't mention Mr Laing as a person at all. The Guardian Bookshop – see my comments about Amazon above. The other BBC link is also dead. BookRags appears to be a self-published wiki. FeaturesExec just has a one-sentence piece which doesn't count as significant coverage. The DWA website isn't an independent source and anyway doesn't seem to mention Mr Laing. The BBC News interview isn't about Laing, and is just him talking anyway, meaning that it's not significant coverage and it's not independent. So the sources are desperately poor in terms of quality and I'd be interested to hear why those !voting 'keep' have done so anyway. ╟─Treasury Tag►senator─╢ 08:37, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- I've looked at the sources and agree with TreasuryTag's analysis, and I can't seem to find any more coverage that isn't already mentioned. Reyk _YO! 20:42, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per ~~User:Jewishprincess~~User:TreasuryTag's analysis of the sources - and per concern that this is not substantially different to creating articles about ghost writers. Egg Centric 21:56, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
May I ask what you're talking about, given that Jewishprincess (talk · contribs) hasn't edited this page...? ╟─Treasury Tag►Alþingi─╢ 07:20, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, a (you have to admit, rather amusing) brain fart due to reading two AFDs at the same time. Egg Centric 18:49, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. We have had seven editors !voting and commenting here, and all but two think this article should be deleted. I would think we have consensus for deletion, and that the 16 days this has been open are sufficient. Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:33, 29 July 2011 (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.