Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Oliver

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. Nakon 23:46, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Oliver

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

Subject fails to meet notability guidelines for notability per WP:ENT Scr★pIron^IV 18:02, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver has appeared in Star Wars and many successful plays in Britain and Europe, and also has cult following as a member of The Factory Theatre Company. I am in the process of updating his page, so I would ask that it is not deleted. Thanks Typing: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.11.184.59 (talk)

The article is going to need more and better citations if it is to be retained- imdb will not suffice. Have a look at WP:N. Artw (talk) 22:13, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will be working on the citations over the next few days. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.11.184.59 (talk) 00:30, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would start with them, otherwise it is all for nothing. Artw (talk) 00:39, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The anonymous/unregistered editor is not confining his or herself to providing citations to the page in question but is adding matter about the subject of the article being considered for deletion to any and all articles with even a passing level of connection. The anonymous editor in question seems to be unusually fixated on this one subject. Urselius (talk) 19:17, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, unfortunatly I may have encouraged this, I should have added that a quantity over quality approach to cites is pretty unlikely to sway the AfD process. Artw (talk) 23:04, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Artw (talk) 22:52, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - though the article now has a surfiet of references all of them appear quite trivial or lacking in independence. If there are some that provide in depth coverage suitable for establishing WP:N it might be worth cutting back to just those to more clearly demonstrate how notability is met. Artw (talk) 23:04, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - notability for actors is more difficult to assess than for engineers, scientists etc., because their work is very public in its fundamental nature. The subject of the article seems to have had a 'good-average' career, with plenty of work, but I don't think this makes him notable. There are plenty of talented jobbing actors out there, but Wikipedia should not be a public cv platform for them. Urselius (talk) 07:16, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am currently working on finding better references for this article; I put in the current 'surfeit' because I was told the page needed more. I appreciate the subject is not necessarily famous, but is well-known in the theatre industry and is notable for the number of leading and supporting roles they have had in important screen and, especially, stage productions, thus meeting Wikipedia's notability guidelines for actors. I appreciate it is much harder to judge with stage than screen actors as they perform to an inherently smaller audience, but that does not mean the better-known amongst them are less 'notable'; for example, very few actors play multiple seasons at England's most famous theatre. Also, I would repeat that The Factory Theatre Company and its major members are notable and enjoy a cult following, and so the subject of the page is included in this.

To break it down by Wikipedia's own notablility guidelines: 1. The subject "has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances", including the films 'Deathwatch' and 'Eskimo Day', the television show 'Hannay', and a great number of notable stage productions, some of which are listed in the article. Such stage productions do not recieve their own Wikipedia articles, presumably as each play has too many different productions to list in detail, but this does not make them, or their casts, less notable than films or television series.

2. The subject "has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following", because of their leading membership of the aforementioned Factory Theatre Company, which has a significant cult following, especially in London, because of its innovative methods and inclusive techniques in dealing with their audiences.

3. The subject "has made prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment", namely theatre. The "prolific" nature of the subject's contribution to the theatre is very clearly proven in the article, as well as its links, as they have appeared in dozens of stage productions in Britain and abroad. The "innovative contributions" come largely thanks to the subject's involvement with The Factory Theatre Company. This is linked to the subject's cult following as it is The Factory Theatre Company's particularly innovative techniques that won them their large fan base. Proof of the innovative nature of the subject's work with The Factory Theatre Company is already referenced in the article (not by me), and further eferences that I will be putting up shortly from well-known, independent sources, should put this beyond doubt.

I apologise if the current references are not of a high enough quality; as I said, I will be improving them shortly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.11.184.59 (talk) 17:18, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kraxler (talk) 18:42, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - if there is an opposite to WP:HEY, this is it. Some half-bad sources were replaced by even worse ones, such as IMDB. Bearian (talk) 18:51, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I clicked on all five general reference news sources cited, all are either a photo caption, list of roles and actors, or one sentence in a review. Non-notable. Mnnlaxer (talk) 18:56, 30 June 2015 (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.