Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan Wilkins (playwright)

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. Cirt (talk) 16:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Wilkins (playwright)

This article needs additional citations for verification.It does not assert notability per WP:WEB, WP:GROUP, or the more generic WP:N. No reliable references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hjkinfo (talk • contribs)

Keep Sufficient citations are given for verification. It should be noted that the nominator (Hjkinfo (talk · contribs)) has had his article nominated for deletion by me, and may be nominating this article in retaliation. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

this page is missing reliable sources, when using the links, there are no firther information, ex: Literary Agent: *: n/a Email:n/a Website:n/a when using google i find Alan Wilkins (cricketer), the rest is made by wikidan61 or in scottish sites —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hjkinfo (talk • contribs) 15:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - thoroughly fails notability checks. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If you're going to link the phrase "notability checks" then please do so to a place that shows some notability checks. Please don't imply that you have made any such checks by providing a deceptive link. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is a stub. I have added it to WikiProject Theatre in hopes that a British editor might be able to expand it. In general theatre articles as a whole are just beginning development and should be allowed to mature. I have found http://www.doollee.com/ has been a reliable source in the past. (although outside Wikipedia) Ecragg (talk) 16:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Stubs are fine if the subject of the article is notable but this subject appears to be non-notable. If anyone has in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources or can otherwise show that the subject meets our notablity requirements, WP:BIO or WP:CREATIVE for instance, I can reconsider my opinion. Drawn Some (talk) 17:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Added note to article about Wilkins' winning of the 2007-2008 Critics' Award for Theatre in Scotland for Best New Play. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Definitely notable, please look at the article again. I easily found references to his plays, also a little about his life. Four plays, three of them commissioned, reviewed in national publications, won a national award for Best New Play as noted above. More will follow over the next few days. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per OrangeMike. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Would that be per OrangeMike's non-existent notability checks? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I checked the new references and #11 is not independent, see here: http://www.doollee.com/Main%20Pages/2AboutDoollee.htm Only the third reference is both in-depth and independent but it is a regional arts publication. It's fine but still more independent reliable sources are needed to provide "substantial" in-depth coverage. Drawn Some (talk) 02:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I removed #11, I agree it is not RS. However the winning of a national critics' award, and reviews of his work in the national press would seem to indicate notability to me. I disagree with the comments above that the article "thoroughly fails" notability. The Times, The Scotsman, The Independent, The Stage, The List, The Guardian are all WP:RS. Jezhotwells (talk) 03:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. 11 just can't be used to determine notability, it could still be used as as a non-independent source in the article per guidelines. I agree this does not "thoroughly" fail, it is borderline. Still, the "substantial" in-depth coverage isn't demonstrated. The award in my opinon isn't of the level required to instantly elevate a person to notability, i guess that could be argued by some. Drawn Some (talk) 11:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In fact the original #11 was a crib from the Traverse Theatre brochure cited (now) at #16. I have added other other cites so the numbering has changed again. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Delete~~ The notability referring to pages where Alan Wilkins is just mentioned, the links do not lead to any further information about Alan Wilkins (playwright). comment by hjk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.159.18.71 (talk) 10:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Only one vote per editor please (this includes the nominator).

~~*Delete~~ It should also be noted that there may be a significant conflict of interest— Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.159.18.71 (talk • contribs)

Again, only one vote per editor please. Note that the conflict of interest that the editor refers to is the fact that I nominated his article for deletion, and in an apparently retaliatory move, he has nominated my article for deletion. It should also be noted that I do not know, nor have I ever met, Mr. Wilkins. I originally created the page because a link to him in another article led to a DIFFERENT Alan Wilkins page, so I thought I would do Wikipedia a favor and create the correct page. This does not constitute a conflict of interest. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am not sure why a playwright's notability should be judged by the standards of WP:WEB or WP:GROUP as suggested by the nominator. The best fit would surely be WP:Creative#Creative_professionals. Reference #4 gives some background (EFL, Poland, Spain), #5 a little morem (drama teacher, age, school where he was working, description of how the play evolved), #7 a little more (winning an award), #11 & #12, #13 & #15 provide a little more. His plays have "received multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.", in The Independent, The Scotsman, The Times, The Guardian, The List, and The Herald. I am not sure what else can be added at present, but I suspect that more will be in the next few years. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply The nominator simply copied the text that I had included when nominating his article (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Creating public Communities). The cited guidelines were appropriate for that article. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see that this edit [1] throws further light on that. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that particular piece of vandalism was completely unrelated to the current debacle. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, obviously, per the cited coverage in reliable sources that shows that the subject passes WP:CREATIVE with multiple independent periodical articles or reviews of his work. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - plenty of evidence of notability (that is, reliable source coverage) is provided in the article & in this discussion. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficient references for notability. DGG (talk) 02:11, 16 June 2009 (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.