Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stanley Leopold Fowler

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. Black Kite (talk) 23:30, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stanley Leopold Fowler[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG a coatrack article for his replica property empire. Theroadislong (talk) 12:10, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. In the meantime the article requires removal of unsourced trivial detail and hagiographic language that undermine credibility. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 13:26, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I gave modest clean up a shot, to no avail: [1]. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 13:50, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As said above, the hagiography gets in the way of serious analysis, but once out of the way (it should be now- I've had a gin at it), the remainder of the article does not withstand scrutiny. Whatever limited notability the village had (and a search suggests it was not as popular as the article indicates), the creator had even less; their are almost no sources apart from us online. Now, of course, they don't have to be online only; but it would be odd for a notable topic not to have some online presence. The article's references do not exist, so they cannot be taken to demonstrate weight. The list of sources at the bottom of the article would be useful, but they are inaccessable to me atm. Perhaps someone who can glance through them can weigh up the WP:DEPTH and WP:PERSISTENCE of coverage the article subject would require to pass WP:GNG at the least.

Further- let me re-emphasise, partly encouraged by Thewayweis' call to arms below, that if as has has been mentioned many times there are newspaper articles from the 70s (or whenever), they would go a long way to demonstrating the notability which is required but is still lacking. So, Thewayweis, can I suggest (in the most emphatic manner politely possible!) that instead of attempting a campaign of moral persuasion via massive chunks of text here, your time would be far better spent collating these source articles. You will note, perhaps, that your massive paragaph has been answered, succintly and accurately by Theroadislong in a single line, regardless of how much you wrote. So, get the newspaper references you mentioned, and either insert them into the SLF page as references, or put them on the article talk page, or even bring them here. Title, date, article title, byline, page number would be great- and sufficient. You do not need permission of the journalists to cite their work. Otherwise there would be no encyclopaedias :) and, after all, we have many editors who are local enough that if they want they can probably physically check the newspaper archives at another date. O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 15:42, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I'm not seeing sources online, like the other posters have noted above. There's a chance with somebody who was notable in that time, that there's a lot of material offline, but unless somebody can find it it's not doing us any good. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 23:19, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete pretty much per the same reasoning as White Arabian Filly above. I have done some minor cleanup of the article just now, removing footnotes that no longer supported anything in the text, removing one newspaper ref that did not mention the title of the paper and so would be untraceable even for somebody with access to offline archives, and just tidying up the refs. Here is the article before my edit, in case somebody wants to look at those now-removed references. The company mentioned in the lede does not have any online footprint that I can find. The Sir David Brand Award for Tourism might be a claim to notability, but I'm not sufficiently convinced to change my !vote on that count. As for the Elizabethan Village, it looks like a place I would like to visit and there's obviously a lot of hard work and dedication behind it - which does not translate into notability, unfortunately. There seems to have been a number of local newspaper articles written about it when it was opened and again around its anniversary, but nothing that would meet WP:GNG. It is mentioned in Armadale, Western Australia which is reasonable but I do not believe that it adds to its creator's notability. --bonadea contributions talk 10:32, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I feel the need to enter this discussion and hopefully put my point across as the author of the article. As a newcomer to wikipedia, I am deeply grateful for all the constructive editing that most contributors have done on the article and I truly don't mind guidance in any sense - I welcome it! Again, as a newcomer, half of the time I am not sure where to go to respond, as there are so many links within links within links to know what is the appropriate option. Nor do I know when suggestions come up on boxes how to fully implement them. Shame wiki cannot allocate a guide to each newcomer if not to make life a tad easier to contribute. The disputed recurring problems, in my humble opinion, seem to be notability and references. The fact is that Stanley Leopold Fowler DID build the Elizabethan Village in Armadale for which there is a plethora of images and documented video footage, he DID win the prestigious Sir David Brand Award for Tourism (images of newspaper articles were supplied to wiki permissions), he DID have three attempts to get permission off Dr. Levi Fox (I spoke to Amy Hurst at the Trust who verified his attempts as they are noted in their archives), the Elizabethan Village DID get a plaque commemorating him and the Elizabethan Village as a historic site which he built (the images were sent to wiki permissions and the City of Armadale needs to grant permission for them to be released). What some one personally thinks about the site pales into insignificance with the fact that it is there and standing as a historic site. I might not like the Stonehenge but it is there as a testimony. I personally saw the blueprints at the archives at the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust in Stratford -upon -Avon and spoke to Amy Hurst, Collections Archivist at the Shakespeare's Birthplace Trust, who can verify their gratitude not only for posterity but also for having the only accurate blueprints, drawings of the original buildings, which they can consult to keep the original buildings from decay). The references kindly given by his daughter, Sally-ann Fowler were from newspaper articles from the 70's (I provided images to this effect of the articles) and I have asked wiki permissions ([Ticket#2017012910007647] Stanley Leopold Fowler) if these can be used. The problem, as I see it, is that they cannot be used as permission needs to be sought from the authors of these articles (who are possibly deceased and cannot be tracked, although I have tried). When the article was initially proposed for deletion this issue, I thought was dealt with but it seems to have reared it's ugly head three times. I hoped that dealing with it once was enough!

The issue of collaboration as I see it, especially with the last deletion proposal, was that there was no collaboration nor constructive guidance by the editor who deleted it. Albeit, I must apologize for thinking it was Theroadislong although he/she cited COI. I was fascinated by the man who actually created something tangible for prosperity, which is officially deemed a historic site, and there is nothing concrete said about him. Is he to fall into obscurity because of referencing? If my style of writing was the issue that can be changed, but no one even said it was to me for me to correct it, although it was called a 'hagiography'. Yes there are guidelines on wiki, but those seem to also be at the whim of individual interpretation. I question how many times can the same article be up for deletion? Going back to the beginning, I cannot stress how grateful I am for the constructive editors who have truly contributed, helped and guided this newcomer...so on a positive...there is always hope! Thewayweis (talk) 11:33, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No one here is doubting the "truth" of what you say but Wikipedia only summarizes what independent, reliable sources say about a topic, if there are no reliable sources then there can be no article. Theroadislong (talk) 12:13, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have just seen your encouraging post imperatrix mundi and yes I take on board the constructive suggestion to gather the arms, clear the field and direct the energy into collating all the information I have to support Leo Fowler. Thank you...may be that's all I needed :) Thewayweis (talk) 19:16, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the list...I uploaded the images originally in wiki commons under Stanley Leopold Fowler as I don't yet know what SLF page is :( These articles show different aspects of the making of the Elizabethan Village and are all about Mr Leo Fowler

Birmingham Post 15th July 1977 - Much Ado for the Outback Bard by Andrew Moncur

Daily News 15th September 1977 -"Unveiled-A piece of Olde England" -

Mr Leo Fowler receiving the Sir David Brand Award - unmarked newspaper but an article non the less -

The Sunday Independent - Elizabethan Add -

The next image is from an article announcing Mary Arden's but unfortunately unmarked and the date is for the purpose of uploading the article

Tudor Village Re-created by Dennis Hancock - unmarked newspaper have given a date for purpose of upload

Woman's Day 28.11.1977 - His 'fair house in another's land' by Hugh Schmitt

Woman's Day cover Image 28.11.1977 -

The Examiner pg 24, 12.02.2009 -"A piece of Shakespearean History up for sale"

Evening Echo, Bournmouth, "Another Island up for sale" 01.07 (not clear of the date but its around the 60's) Leo Fowler selling his property The Round Island https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sale_of_Round_Island_Evening_Echo,_Bournemouth_newspaper_article_1st_July_-_unmarked_year_(1).jpg

Evening Echo, Bournmouth, "Another Island up for sale" 01.07.(not clear of the date but its around the 60's) Image of the island for sale

File:Sale of Round Island, Evening Echo Bournemouth newspaper article 1st July unmarked year (2).jpg

Image of The Round Island up for Sale

Ribbon Cutting Ceremony 17.10.2009 Image of plaque at the Elizabethan Village from the City of Armadale commemorating Leo Fowler and acknowledging his Sir David Brand Award handed over by the Mayor Linton Reynolds

The Leo Fowler Function Center image - originally it was The William Shakespeare Function Center but changed to commemorate Leo Fowler on 17.10.2009

Poster inviting people to join in the celebrations for Shakespeare's birthday at the Elizabethan Village

youtube footage of the Elizabethan Village ...I wasn't sure if these are valid for you but there are many more footages and photographs that can support the whole journey. On Sall-ann Fowler' s you tube channel you can find footage of Bricklehampton Hall and Round Island as well as the imported antiques and the Elizabethan village.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hf5rLNGlj0M&feature=youtu.be - this is just one of the documented footages but there are many more.

There are more snippets in articles I can post if you wish but they are unmarked so not sure of the actual newspaper. I had to reload them on and upload them to https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Stanley_Leopold_Fowler as this is as far as my wiki knowledge extends.

Hopefully, these uploads for you will be enough reference for Stanley Leopold Fowler to stay on wiki as a notable human being. There are also two books published by Sally-ann Fowler with ISBN numbers, that I listed originally, but was told being that they were self-published it doesn't count :( although you can buy them on amazon, lulu and i think Barns and Noble.

Thewayweis (talk) 14:05, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. The article about the Round Island sale hasn't comeup. It was published in Evening Echo, Bournemouth "Another Island up for sale" speaks of Leo Fowler being the owner of the island. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thewayweis (talk • contribs) 14:13, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, with redirect, to Armadale,_Western_Australia#Natural_and_Cultural_Attractions, or perhaps create article at Elizabethan Village and redirect there. There clearly needs to be a link of some sort from this man's name, even if not a standalone article. PamD 07:48, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Create article Elizabethan Village, and redirect SLF to it. A search on Google Books under " "Elizabethan village" Armadale" suggests it was a regular tourist attraction in its day, and someone with access to old Australian tourist guidebooks would find much more coverage. The impressive collection of press cuttings can be used as references, before someone deletes them all as copyvio. It gets a mention by Howard Jacobson, a mention in a novel, etc. A contemporary tourist attraction with comparable listings would be likely to have an article. The man is probably not notable, but his creation seems to be. Another useful current ref here. PamD 10:43, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And a mention in the Telegraph here. PamD 10:53, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And as the plaque shows, it was the Village, not the man, which was awarded the "David Brand Award for Tourism", which the David Brand article confirms to have been the former name (dates a bit iffy) of the now WA Tourism Awards (though their website has no sense of heritage and doesn't include a list of former winners!). PamD 11:00, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:03, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:03, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please address new sources and move them for viewing somewhere off-wiki (we do not have the copyright permissions to host these uploads)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 05:04, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think the article needs help referring to Thewayweis Jacob20162016 (talk) 11:55, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I agree that Elizabethan Village is a more suitable focus for an article than Fowler himself. If the outcome of this discussion is delete, a lot of the content could be reused and so it would be good if it could be userfied to give either Thewayweis or someone else the chance to do so. – Joe (talk) 16:30, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As the nominator I would be content for the article to be about Elizabethan Village instead, rather than the man behind it. Theroadislong (talk) 16:45, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - if it would be welcome, I'm happy to help with the development of an article about the Elizabethan Village if that's the outcome (that seems to be the way this is going) Mortee (talk) 17:16, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 05:17, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comments and the willingness to tidy whatever needs tiding but I have to say that the discussion above has horrified me. You are willing to accept the Elizabethan Village but not accept the creator!!!!! Astonishing !!!! It's like acknowledging the works of Shakespeare but not acknowledging the writer. The village is notable but not the creator....Did the village create itself. At the end of the day, did the village literally receive the award into it's hands or was it handed into the hands of its owner, creator and builder Leo Fowler. Splitting hairs comes to mind. The plaque issued in 2009 states "City of Armadale - Historic Site - Elizabethan Village - Brought to reality by the vision and hard work of retired British Engineer, Leo Fowler, Anne Hathaway's Cottage, Shakespeare's Birthplace and Cobwebs Restaurant accurate replicas of the original buildings on Stratford-On-Avon.".

I truly don't know what to say to the above! On the subject of copywright, all the above was given with the permission of Leo's daughter Sally-ann Fowler, and as Imperatrix Mundi said "You do not need permission of the journalists to cite their work. Otherwise there would be no encyclopaedias " I have given everything that you have asked of me and still,  it seems, that someone, something wants to discredit the man who created  and self-financed the village.

Thewayweis (talk) 15:21, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to mention the brilliant story of the bricks, window frames and tiles, together with all the antiques swimming across the oceans to land on the Western Australian shores and gather together, under the moonlight, reaching a consensus of who is going to be assembled with whom, of course with the help of all the reusable jarra. And that's how they built the Elizabethan Village. Thewayweis (talk) 15:46, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely no one here is trying to discredit Stanley, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that summarises dispassionately what independent, reliable sources say about a topic. If there are insufficient sources about him, as opposed to the Elizabethan village then we can't have an article about him. Theroadislong (talk) 16:05, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thewayweis, is your view that there should be articles about both the village and the creator? My impression from the discussion was that other editors think that because he's mostly notable for the village, we can cover the details about him in an article about that and don't need both. Perhaps we should write the village article and then see if you still think there are details that that need to be presented on a page of their own. Mortee (talk) 17:48, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, my response to Theroadislong Technically, you ARE discrediting him as a creator of the village and just accepting the creation. Quoting the need for "reliable" sources even after the knowledge of the era we are talking about is beyond comprehension. I have been saying repeatedly, to no avail, since I have written the article that Leo and the Village happened in the 1970's which is a very, very different information era than the one we know these days. I have complied to the requests above and posted on here images to that effect. Leo is the village, the village wouldn't exist without Leo! There is a history room named after him "Leo Fowler Function Room". This process is equal to Kafka's "Trial" as it seems an article can be up for deletion three times at the whim of individual likes or dislikes. Please delete all wiki articles of people who have ever created anything and just keep the creations. What more do you want ...it was in the 70's!!!!!!!! Forgive me,but the communications that are building with yourself, as the nominator for deletion, seem to have become a personal mission, to what extent, is unclear to me.. I accept constructive ways forward but refuse ones that are making no sense.... it appears the road is truly long!!!!!

Secondly, my response to Mortee - yes an article should be for both on wiki...As I said if you accept one (the creation) and discredit the other (the creator) by this line of suggestion you should remove many other names from wikipedia and just retain the creation. This whole journey has become a non constructive farce.... Thewayweis (talk) 22:46, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would have a look at WP:ITSA and WP:NRV to get a picture of the arguments being used. Shakespeare is notable because there are sources about him - not because he wrote the plays; they were a conduit to provide those sources. It appears that the village is notable, but the creator does not necessarily inherit the notability of the village, notability is not inherited. Only sources can establish this. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 18:44, 19 March 2017 (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.