Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simon Nicholls

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) 05:24, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Nicholls

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

Unverified BLP. A Google News search delivers this, which does not suggest that the subject is notable. He may have worked on a lot of notable shows ("may" since none of it is verified), but I am not sure that that makes him automatically notable. And despite the fact that he looks pretty good, kind of gloomy and hip with his beard and his beer, the news hits suggest that he does not pass WP:GNG. Article was originally written by what appears to be an SPA, and it certainly reads a bit like a resume; that's not a reason for deletion, though--non-notability is. Drmies (talk) 20:02, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - looking at the potential sources, he certainly looks like a major producer, and good sources tend to show that. Bearian (talk) 21:54, 8 December 2010 (UTC) P.S. I found and added several sources found from Google news and books. This is an easy rescue. Bearian (talk) 22:30, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If it is so easy, calling in the squad is probably overkill. I've seen the sources you added--I saw them all before I nominated the article. They all mention the person, nothing more; the question is, what kind of job does one need to do on something notable to become notable oneself? Applying GNG doesn't help here, since none of these references provide any kind of discussion of the man and the work he does. We agree, I think, that the guy who makes the coffee in the BBC complex is not notable, nor the cameraman for Top gear--so where is the line? If you could point to policy or precedent, that would be appreciated. Drmies (talk) 04:14, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry to call in the rescue kops. :-) Anyway, no, I do not think there is any policy or guideline, nor have I heard his shows (I live in Albany, New York). But there have been reviews of his producing credits, for hit shows. So I think he passes GNG as well as WP:CREATIVE. Bearian (talk) 21:38, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^chatter 00:54, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The section titled "Critical reviews of his work" seems to prove he is notable. Plus he has produced many notable works. If you wanted anything more added to the article, you could always search for his name and the name of some of his notable shows. I think there is enough already there to prove his notability though. Dream Focus 19:32, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: a couple of very brief mentions (in the 'Critical reviews of his work' section), as part of reviews of projects that were team efforts (as opposed to being the topic's solo creative work), does not amount to notability, and would not distinguish him from the majority of BBC radio producers/writers/voice-actors/etc, for whom we'd expect to see similar occasional brief mentions. 'Find' search results do not appear to turn up anything more substantive about this Simon Nicholls. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:40, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per RS sources, as reflected in g searches.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:48, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GHITS -- invalid argument. You have not demonstrated that any of these hits are either reliable or yield "significant coverage" on the topic. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:06, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proper g searches can easily tease out the RS sources I refer to. Of course, wp:ghits is about something else entirely -- simply referring to the number of ghits, rather than the fact that a g search can easily yield the RS sources.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:29, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then your argument devolves to a mere argument by assertion (as you have done nothing to substantiate that your "g searches" actually yield "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"). I would suggest that "~~it has g-hits~~ "g-searches" [produce g-hits] therefore it has RSs [therefore it is notable]" is no more valid than "it has XX-many g-hits, therefore it is notable", and that the two arguments aren't that dissimilar. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:38, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who -- other than you, repeatedly now -- has mentioned ghits? Very confused. Are you putting words in my mouth by accident? Twice now?--Epeefleche (talk) 08:41, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"g searches" (unless they happen to provide no hits) inevitably means "g hits". The 'g hits" are the results of the "g search". So now you have compounded an invalid argument with pointless hair-splitting. Very tendentious. Misrepresenting a valid paraphrase as "putting words in my mouth"? WP:AGF? Game-playing? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:02, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: meets the notability for WP:CREATIVE by producing many notable works.222.127.18.194 (talk) 08:11, 15 December 2010 (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.