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 no consensus. MBisanz talk 03:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Fiske-Harrison[edit]

Alexander Fiske-Harrison (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Found no "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". Many hits on Google, but most are either articles by the subject, passing mentions, or his own account at various sites. --aktsu (t / c) 19:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are right of course, you did more than participate - my mistake. AFD is not about the quality of the article, but if you're notable enough to have an article in the first place. Did some formatting on your entry, hope you don't mind. --aktsu (t / c) 20:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors.
  2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
  3. The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.EdJohnston (talk) 21:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are still editing with a conflict of interest because you know the subject personally. Wikipedia articles are not supposed to be edited majorly by people who know the subjects. Editing with a COI is a very bad idea because its almost impossible to maintain a neutral point of view when you know the subject personally. This artile wouldn't exist if it wasn't for the conflict of interest. There is no doubt that this article promotes the subject as Wikipedia is a very popular website and any potential employer will see his resume here. In that way, this article is financially connected to him and having a person close to him create and edit it is against the spirit of WP:NPOV, a conflict of interest, and an overall bad idea. Themfromspace (talk) 12:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, that's there the claim 'most commented on article' came from, which I've deleted. dougweller (talk) 12:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't true. I have met the subject on one occasion, having prior to that seen the play and read the Prospect essay. If I do have a COI it's with my own conscience for causing this furore. NB The 'most commented on' was pointed out to me by the editor of Prospect, however, it is easy to establish by comparison. I cannot find a single entry with even close to 118 comments. --Bigjimedge (talk) 12:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
However saying "Compare for yourself" puts it firmly in the realm of original research which isn't allowed on wikipedia. If you had a third party reference pointing this out, from a reliable source, then that would be acceptable. Even then 118 comments is very probably not notable in itself, it just shows a very slow blog. --Blowdart | talk 12:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I've done no such thing. I removed one reference which did not mention you at all, removed references about your self penned play as they're already on the play's page and pointed out that the other acting references mention you as a cast member, but do not provide any comment on you beyond that. That's the nice thing about references, people can see for themselves. As for the removal of bits from The Pendulum - A Tragedy of 1900 Vienna, well posting the inside of the programme is not encyclopaedic to me and adds nothing to the article. But that's another discussion. As for it is necessary to provide the commentary yourself no it's not, not unless they are simple factual statements, as ever see WP:COI --Blowdart | talk 15:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strictly speaking you have. Your comment suggests that there are no comments on the acting on *this* page, but you personally removed the only references from *this* page which commented on the acting, whether they remain elsewhere or not. NB you find no notability where Geordie Greig, David Goodhart and Michael Billington, among others, all have. --Bigjimedge (talk) 18:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Other stuff exists is not an excuse for non-deletion; the people you choose are notable for their positions of editors of major magazines. As it is I removed reference already in the play article, which is linked too from the person. There's no need to duplicate like this. This is rapidly descended into WP:TEAMWORK. I assume by *this* page you mean the article itself, rather than the deletion debate. I've left the "in passing" references more to demonstrate the weakness of them than anything else. And finally, please remember to sign your posts. --Blowdart | talk 17:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am only in this conversation because, as the instigator, I feel some responsibility. Thus WP:TEAMWORK is inapplicable. You also do not follow my point. I am not saying the subject is like the people mentioned, but that they have deemed him notable in their own work, where you have not.--Bigjimedge (talk) 18:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I meant being reprinted in India and being interviewed on Al-Jazeera, alongside the dozen blogs around the world, yes. Obviously, this is not all his articles. This is not a personal site or repository for work.--Bigjimedge (talk) 19:27, 19 January 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.
More