Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greg Day (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. L Faraone 21:17, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Day (playwright)

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

This article was created by the same user who created Clout Communications, which is Greg Day's company, and which was recently deleted at AfD [1]. The purpose of both articles has been the promotion of Greg Day and his endeavors. This article on Day was declined at Articles for Creation [2] and then disruptively moved into the main space anyway. Day fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG and WP:RS. Qworty (talk) 20:46, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. czar · · 23:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. czar · · 23:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. czar · · 23:06, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Articles should be assessed on their own merit not universally condemned because of their author. Just because the article for Clout was deleted does not automatically mean this one should be.
The deletion policy states that improvement should be preferable to deletion: this article is only in need of a few edits or additions: deletion is the wrong approach. The subject of the article meets the notability criteria as it has significant coverage in reliable sources (including several national newspapers), and also meets the WP:Author criteria as the subject has "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". I have contacted the author of the article about adding further detail to his references (the article's authors and titles), so that they can be more easily verified -but again this is a relatively minor addition and a far better alternative to deletion.
With regards to promotion, I don't believe it reads with an overly promotional tone. It's not blatant advertising so is not a grounds for deletion anyway, but full and proper neutrality could be achieved with a little diligent editing. This is another little edit and as the policy states; improvement should be our first port of call and deletion the last.
It would be unfair of me not to mention that the user who has submitted this article for deletion appears to have somewhat of a vendetta against the author of the article. I am not the only user who has criticised the user for his extremely harsh treatment of the author; which has included unnecessary threats to block him from wikipedia and unjustified accusations of vandalism. A quick look at the user's talkpage show's it's not an isolated incident and over several years they have been repeatedly warned about Wikipedia's fundamental principle of civility. Rushton2010 (talk) 21:55, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subject wrote a few plays which were produced in not so notable places. There is a suggestion of coverage but incomplete bibliographic information makes this difficult to verify. I can't find anything in Google News or Google Books, so I can't say anything but delete. FWIW, I do believe that the article is too promotional in tone (the second paragraph of the lead...and look at the first version). These edits didn't improve the article much: they're not reliable sources. The promotionality is not in itself a reason for deletion, of course, but I point this out for the sake of redundancy. Drmies (talk) 02:01, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I must really argue against the use of google news (google in general is not suitable for any academic searches *or anything other than broad pop-culture searches for that matter* as is constantly drummed into university students). It really is no use in establishing notability as it anything but complete and has no proper archive. For example I used google news last week to follow a large local news story. There were countless stories online about it but google news only found 1. And then after two days google news stopped finding that one. The URL to the story on the bbc website had not changed but google news came back with no results; as if it had never happened.
If we are going to use "hits" on news websites as proof of notability (which we really shouldn't be) we need to go to ones which actually have a proper and complete archive of news stories. The Times Digital Archive holds a complete and fully searchable collection of all The Times newspapers from 1785-2007. UK Press Online similarly holds a complete archive of the Daily Mirror (1903-present), Daily Express (1900-present) and Sunday Express (2000-present). Both of these sites require a paid subscription, but I, like many others on Wikipedia, have institutional access to them through university.
-These are the types of sites we should be using to search for references; not the half-arsed answer of google.
As for notability of where the plays are performed - that isn't really a relevant argument; an individual does not gain notability (or lose it) based on where they have or have not performed. If someone performs once at a big venue like the O2 arena, does that make them notable? No. And Shakespeare performed mainly in some very non-notable places, does that loose him notability? No.
And it's hard to call places like BBC Radio 4, non-notable. (if they're not, I look forward to seeing their pages being nominated for deletion).
As for the second sentence "His 'nihilistic jocularity' led to his second play, The Arrangement, being described as "the most disturbing bedsitcom since Polanski's The Tenant", I don't see that as promotional; the first part could be lost as it doesn't add anything for anyone who doesn't have a pretty broad vocabulary (nihilistic jocularity means to basically have a comically skeptical view on life), but the "The Arrangement, was described as "the most disturbing bedsitcom since Polanski's The Tenant" is a simply a statement of fact, not of promotion - and actually is rather an argument for notability.
I was actually the one that nominated the Clout Communications for deletion. (I have no connection to the subject or the author or any interest in theatre or anything) the reason I nominated it for deletion was that it was impossible to improve it to a standard that would bring it in line with the policies. This one is different. I would say it meets the notability policy; others disagree but those arguments are not strong. Anything minor can be fixed and better to air on the side of caution and not delete, whilst improvements can still be made, and whilst notability is still in discussion. The policy says we should seek to improve and delete only which cannot be improved; something Jimmy Wales has also talked about. This article seems the obvious candidate for improvement. Unfortunately there are certain reviews and editors who do not follow these policies and just pick and choose what they want from them. The above comment is prime example: Complaining that the article sounds a little promotional (which isn't grounds for deletion anyway), but then making no contribution to improving the article.
"Because editors can't be arsed to make improvements" is no grounds for deletion. -Come on guys- follow policy -lets improve the articles and make wikipedia the great place we all hope it can be.
Rushton2010 (talk) 10:39, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that's certainly a lot of words. Unfortunately, you said absolutely nothing. Have you got one shred of WP:RS to establish WP:42 for this person? No, of course you don't. Because it just doesn't exist. Qworty (talk) 10:47, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- And the 26 references listed on the article count for nothing. If national newspapers are suddenly not classed as reliable sources and having 26 independent references (many of which are whole articles solely about the subject's works) aren't classed as significant coverage then the inbox for articles being deleted is going to fill up big time! Rushton2010 (talk) 11:06, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - And it doesn't look like a single one of those is ABOUT him. Do you understand WP:42 and WP:NOTINHERITED? Do you understand that a source has to be ABOUT a subject in order for it to be considered a support for notability? It's not about the notability of the source--it's about the notability of the PERSON. You don't seem to understand how sourcing works. Qworty (talk) 11:15, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - yes yes yes. So reviews of his work and articles about him in national newspapers aren't actually about him? Dream on. Rushton2010 (talk) 12:33, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Let's assume that he wrote one play that was notable--which is a big stretch, since he never wrote anything notable. But let's just assume he wrote one play that was notable. The notability of his play wouldn't extend to HIM, because of WP:NOTINHERITED. It doesn't matter how many articles you can dredge up that may have passing mentions of his plays. None of the articles are about HIM. You are extremely confused about how notability works in biographies. That much is clear. Qworty (talk) 13:06, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:46, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep plenty of references. Having a "Work of Greg Day" article (because it's that which is mostly covered) rather than Greg Day is being a bit silly and not following WP:COMMONSENSE, now isn't it? Also, clear WP:WIKILAWYER abuse of WP:NOTINHERITED, in violation of WP:NOTPOLICY. Barney the barney barney (talk) 16:54, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Talking generally, I rather agree with Ruston, above. GN needs to be used very carefully, searching both the "any time" and the "all news" choices. What is counts and what it doesn't is a little peculiar--for example it includes the Press release publications which are not RSs, and changes with time. It's still helpful. The nYT archive and similar are limited to individual newspapers--there are various newspaper aggregators , which many of us have access to --but I know of none that are complete. I often check plain google also--I will sometimes find refs that are as reliable of most of G News. There is no magic recipe. what can be found depends on persistence, skill at guesswork, and what one has available. But it was much worse 10 years ago, before G News. DGG ( talk ) 05:08, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Comment I am disdappointed at the intellectual snobbery on Wikipedia. Maybe the naysayers could establish a pragmatic guide as to what counts for notability - always a subjective matter at the best of times. How should we judge the merit of plays and films - on box office receipts? On good reviews in The Times or The Daily Telegraph? On the playwright's bloodline? Many playwrights and film directors early efforts were regarded as minor, yet in teh context of their overall canon they are still important works. A plat is a play and a film is a film - if it has been written then it exists and the work and the playwright are both worthy of some recognition, even if it only to say that the work is minor. One might as well dismiss Lady Jane Grey as a monarch because she only reigned 9 days and was probably useless. One may as well exclude gnats from the natural history books because they are not as grand as eagles. Is an obscure childrens book published in 1912 less worthy thanb Dan Browns Da Vinci Code. Absolutely not. In fact, freethinkers might argue that it's Dan Brown who should be looked down on for his questionable talents. But it seems that snobbish editors are always in thrall to the arts that make money and not the arts that matter.

As for COI, as a journalist I happen to know lots of famous people, especially in teh arts and media. Shopuld I therefore be excluded from editing, say, Sean Bean's wikiopedia page, or the articles on Uri Geller, Steve Harley or Sir Richard Attenborough, for I know all these people well, along with many others. One might equally argue that as a native of Burton on Trent I should be banned from contributing to the Wikipedia page since I am bound to be biased one way or another about the town. I love teh Rolling Stones so certainly should not edit their page lest I give an unbalanced view. I respect Wikipedia;s rules - but they are NOT APPLIED CONSISTENTLY and we all know that laws applied at random do not constitute justice. Likewise here. Picknick99 (talk) 17:40, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Incubate/Rework - As it is, the article is about the plays, not the playwright, and doesn't establish the notability of the plays. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:35, 11 May 2013 (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.