Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rupert Clague

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. Sandstein 15:30, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rupert Clague[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Does not meet notability criteria, written like a CV with links that do not meet Wikipedia criteria Trumplives46 (talk) 14:48, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 15:25, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This nomination comes from an SPA, as such we need to treat it with caution but that doesn't mean that we automatically reject it. Let's see what we find... First up, the article has a conversational unencyclopaedic tone. That's never a good sign but it is fixable if there is notability. At least the Copyvio detector doesn't turn up any plagiarism. "Clague has worked on documentaries all over the world..." is followed by links to a lot of notable programmes and documentaries but they don't link back. What was his actual involvement? It wasn't nothing but most of the time it wasn't pivotal either. Then we get on to documentaries that he actually directed. That's better. Or is it? None of those seem to have articles. So what have we got? IMDB offers a good way to look at it. He produced some episodes of TV shows. He directed some stuff but it is mostly non-notable shorts and segments. ("Pawsea" is only 4 mins long.) There are a couple of award nominations but they don't seem to confer notability. The fundamental problem is that the article tries to inherit notability from his involvement with more notable people and projects but that's not how notability works. The only really good independent reference is the Ham & High. It is RS and it is actually about Clague. Is it good enough though? Not really. It's a local paper writing about a local person. It would be fine alongside other good sources but it can't take the weight of the article alone. The CBC article helps a little but only a little as he is not the main focus. The IOM Today piece is about him but only about him trying to crowdfund. The Battle of Ideas Festival reference is not great. It seems to be some sort of "free speech festival" (yawn). That said, I don't see any reason to doubt its basic biographical details about their speakers although clearly it is trying to big them up as much as it can. It is probably OK for verification but confers no notability. So, last gasp, maybe the article is just poorly written? Maybe there is more RS out there? Fortunately his name is very distinctive and it is easy to Google. Unfortunately it doesn't turn up much. There is this interview and that's about it. I came here expecting this to be a speedy keep and its actually a weak delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanielRigal (talk • contribs)
Delete Agree with above explanation, I can't find much for sourcing. Same ones that turn up for the article. Oaktree b (talk) 18:29, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May not be important, however Trumplives76, when listing Rupert Clague for deletion, deleted much of the page. This has not happened in the current revision of the page, as I write this. This caused multiple reverts by myself and other editors, so may have problems under 3RR. JML1148 (talk) 08:09, 2 August 2022 (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.