Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Noel Marshall

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. Stifle (talk) 15:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Noel Marshall

Noel Marshall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Contested PROD where my rationale was "Subject lacks non-trivial coverage in reliable, third-party sources that would establish notability and allow for a full, neutral, biography to be written about this individual". The PROD was removed and eight sources were added that, at first, I thought was fairly impressive. When I looked at them, however, none actually addressed the concerns for my original PROD, save for the fact that they are reliable, third-party sources. Here's a quick look at all of them:

1. An article about Raquel Welch - Contains a quote from Marshall in the context of him being her former publicity manager
2. An article about Frances Farmer's alleged lover - Has a brief mention of Marshall in his role as executive producer of the Exorcist
3. An article about Tippi Hedren - Mentions Marshall as her ex-husband
4. Another article about Tippi Hedren - Again, nothing more than a mention of Marshall as her ex-husband
5. Yet another article about Tippi Hedren - Another fleeting mention of Marshall
6. Website about film flops - Notes Marshall as a director of one of them
7. Same reference as #3
8. IMDb-style profile of Marshall from the New York Times - Nothing more; perhaps less, than what one could find on an IMDb-profile

None of these sources provide non-trivial coverage that would be required to establish notability and allow for a full, neutral biography to be written. A quick Google search does reveal a lot of hits, but most of them relate to The Exorcist, providing little more than his role in the film if that, and none of them provide anything more than trivial coverage. At best, this should be a redirect to Tippi Hedren, although I doubt that anyone would type in Noel Marshall to get to her page. Cheers, CP 02:04, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

• Keep – Based on Creative Notability Guidelines where is states: “…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”. I believe the Exorcist qualifies, as a well know work. Thanks ShoesssS ^Talk 15:55, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Question - Do sub-guidelines override the general notability requirement? In any case, for the reasons stated above (lack of non-trivial coverage), I see no evidence that a proper article could be written about this individual. Could we not keep the material as a small section of The Exorcist (film) rather than have a perma-stub? Just a rhetorical question or two. Cheers, CP 17:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

• Comment -Hello CP Ahh the eternal question :-). First, as a guideline it is not policy, in that it is not mandated that it be followed. It is more a reflection of the community consensus reached through discussions and reinforced by established practice, and informs decisions on whether an article on a person should be written, merged, deleted or further developed. With that said, the sub-headings under Notability are meant for individuals, under specialty areas, such as Academics – Films – Music and such who do not meet general notability standards but are notable in some other way under one of the other notability guidelines. Example is if an academic is notable under this Academics guideline, his or her possible failure to meet other notability guidelines is irrelevant. Hope this helps. ShoesssS ^Talk 18:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Not as disagreeing, but as an alternative way of saying it--they need to be read together, in the understanding that they are all of them guidelines, not fixed rules, a guide to how we judge individual articles. The way we evaluate the possible conflicts in guidelines and policies is to discuss articles here at Afd. DGG (talk) 03:03, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 04:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

• keep - the basic common sense rule for notability is whether someone would like to know about the person. In this case the answer is "yes" (exetive producer of several films; hence part of the history of Hollywood), and verifiable information, however scarse, exists. Twri (talk) 06:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
• Weak delete after looking at the available sources, both in the article and on a couple of subscription-only newspaper databases. Noel Marshall's name comes up often in producing Roar, which I do not think can really be considered "a significant or well-known work" per WP:CREATIVE. In resources other than those covering Roar, he is only mentioned in passing. The Wikipedia article as it stands feels like a forced hodge-podge of these brief mentions and information better suited for the article for Roar. I think that his involvement with Roar should be detailed at the film article, but I don't think that there is enough information about the person himself to warrant a biographical article. —Erik (talk • contrib) 23:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

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.