Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dougie Swallow

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Jayjg (talk) 01:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dougie Swallow

[edit]
Dougie Swallow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:ENTERTAINER. Singularity42 (talk) 19:23, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doesnt fail WP:NOTABILITY though. 82.132.139.13 (talk) 19:33, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ENTERTAINER is a guideline of how WP:NOTABILITY applies to entertainers. Yes, it is possible to met the general notability guidelines without meeting the entertainer guideline, but it exceedingly rare. How does the article's subject meet the notability guidelines? Singularity42 (talk) 19:42, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He has been on television with his act a number of times now, he's rather well known throughout the United Kingdom for his act and now works on the new Richard and Judy show searching for new talent. Rather than proposing it for deletion straight after the page is created, how about waiting a few minutes until references have been added for it. If you have a problem with how it it layed out, why not be bold and change the layout to fit more as an entertainer. Thanks for your comment. 82.132.139.13 (talk) 19:50, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please remember to always assume good faith. I did do a Google search for this person. I found some YouTube videos and some Facebook postings. Neither are reliable sources to support notability. I'm not sure where you are coming from saying that I am opposed to the layout of the of article. All I am saying is that he does not meet the notability guidelines for entertainers. Appearing on television is not in and of itself automatic notability. There should generally be coverage of the subject by multiple, independent mainstream media. So far, I can't find any, and the burden is on the person proposing the article. Singularity42 (talk) 19:54, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am the performer in question, I found that two friends created this page without my knowledge, I was indeed as referenced by Youtube on Britains got Talent, and Richard and Judy's New Position, I agree with a comment that just auditioning is not notable, however I was asked to return and featured on another program (R&J). How about to retain the article we mention more about my other skills such as web development and my websites? --Andrewds (talk) 02:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Auditioning for a talent show is not notable. And speaking as someone who's in the United Kingdom - I've seen no evidence he is "rather well known" (as stated above) or "famously known" (as stated in the article). I42 (talk) 20:00, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument for whether he is rather well known or famously known, is simply original research. There are a number of people who have an article on this website who I have never heard of? Does that mean their page should be deleted? No. I am getting suitable references for the article. 82.132.139.13 (talk) 20:03, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Surely your assertion that he is notable is the original research? I am merely disputing that. I42 (talk) 20:04, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, as I have sources for them, I'm just rewriting the article at the moment in order to try to make it flow better and make it more obvious that he is notable. Doesn't help when I'm on here trying to save it from being deleted when people don't give editors a chance to get their sources all together.82.132.139.13 (talk) 20:09, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1) WP:BURDEN lies with the editor that adds or restores material. Therefore, in this case, it lies with the editor(s) who have created the article. 2) There's no rush. This discussion will last a minimum of seven days. Plenty of time to add the references. Singularity42 (talk) 20:15, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ive heard of this Dougie person one of my favorite impersonators and not sure where you live but he is very well heard of in the Derbyshire/south yorkshire area of the uk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leedsalex23 (talk • contribs) 20:11, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um, you created the article on the person. I would hope you have heard of the person before you created the article... Unfortunately, you saying he is well known is your own opinion. What you need to do is show us some reliable sources that indicate that he is well known. Singularity42 (talk) 20:17, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ive also heard of him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leedsalex6 (talk • contribs) 20:21, 27 December 2009 (UTC) This user is an admitted sock of Leedsalex23, who !voted keep above. Singularity42 (talk) 23:13, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. As one of the comments above says, simply auditioning for the X Factor is not notable enough. If that was the case, we would have to let pages exist for everyone who had applied to be on a talent show! I was holding off nominating this article for deletion so I could look into this and find any reliable sources to support this person, but all I can find is a few YouTube videos which can't be counted as reliable sources. In case it's of any interest, I too speak from the UK but I can't recall ever seeing or hearing of this person before --5 albert square (talk) 21:01, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He hasn't just been on a talent show though. He was invited back for a special, and was also invited onto Richard an Judy's TV show. He now works for them following that, and is entering Celebrity Big Brother next year. Your views are misguided and incorrect.

The Delete comments clearly do not take WP:POTENTIAL into account. 82.132.139.65 (talk) 01:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In any event, what part of WP:POTENTIAL#Ways to spot article potential does this even meet? Singularity42 (talk) 01:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Points 1 and 4. Thanks for your comment.82.132.139.65 (talk) 01:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, WP:POTENTIAL is an essay an does not supercede the general notability guideline. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 02:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it has context - but not context that could demonstrate notability. Yes, it cites a secondary source, but not a secondary source that could demonstrate notability. As Dylanfromthenorth indicates, WP:NOTABILITY is policy. WP:POTENTIAL is an essay that reflects the views of some editors, and must fall within policy. So the question is: does this article have potential to demonstrate notability? The answer is a resounding no. Singularity42 (talk) 02:05, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. 82.132.139.130 (talk) 00:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well considering how you are a member of a website which doesn't even like him, your views are completely irrelevant and completely biased. 82.132.139.130 (talk) 00:48, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Benedikt is a friend of someone who I dislike, and that person in question probably asked him to write that comment. This comment is personal hate and should not be classed as a reason to delete this page. --Andrewds (talk) 02:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This page is to discuss whether the article in question should be deleted. Let's try to stay on topic, and assume good faith.
  • I believe that all the posters voting delete have something against Dougie Swallow's act. Therefore there is a conflict of interest and I do not believe that these unnotable users should be allowed to participate in this discussion any further, as clearly they cannot remain neutral. Please try to remain WP:NPOV. Thanks 82.132.139.130 (talk) 00:45, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ha! That's a good one. According to your logic, anyone !voting delete must be implicitly against the subject and hence has a conflict of interest of participating in this discussion. I wonder why other users haven't thought of that to get shut down AfDs they don't agree with. Seriously, though, is there anything in my contribution list to indicate I have any specific interest in this individual or with any entertainers? Please start assuming good faith for a change. Singularity42 (talk) 00:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please adhere to Wikipedia policies. You are against the subject, hence why you want his article to be deleted. That is a conflict of interest. Please leave the discussion, as your views are blinkering the issue here, which is that the article shouldn't be deleted as it has useful information about the subject. Your dislike of the subject's act is causing you to influence other people's opinions, of which I believe is rather unfair and unethical. Clearly you are not assuming good faith so please practice assuming it before telling others to do so. Thanks. 82.132.248.12 (talk) 01:24, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot see any conflict of interest going on here nor can I see that anyone is in breach of WP:NPOV. I did research this person and cannot find any source that states that he works or worked on Richard and Judy that complies with WP:RS. Please start assuming good faith.
Why don't you practice what you preach? I am attempting to keep this article as it has some knowledge on it (agreed it needs a little work) and I do not agree that we should delete any source of knowledge. So why don't you assume good faith too. 82.132.248.12 (talk) 01:24, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am the performer in question, there are lies such as Celebrity Big Brother, and working for Richard and Judy, however the rest is true. --Andrewds (talk) 02:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, as you say that "unnotable users" should not be allowed to participate any further in this discussion, I take it you are including yourself in that? --5 albert square (talk) 01:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, as I am not a user. 82.132.248.12 (talk) 01:24, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Might be notable one day, but isn't there yet. Fails WP:ENT as far as I can see. And I see trying to shoehorn him in under GNG as an endrun around the fact that he really isn't notable as an entertainer. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe that all the people voting delete are all sockpuppets of eachother, so at this moment in time this debate (and article) needs to remain until a sockpuppetry investigation has taken place. Clearly the fact that they all mention he is unnotable and many of the users mention assuming good faith is enough evidence to suggest they are linked in some way. They use the same style of language too. I challenge all of you who have voted delete to provide reliable sources to prove you are not sock puppets. Thanks. 82.132.248.16 (talk) 00:32, 4 January 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dougie_Swallow&oldid=1069228046"