- 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 – article improved; speedy close by nominator. – S. Rich (talk) 17:13, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Stanley Rubinstein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:GNG. Various people appeared on the Desert Island Discs program. Are all of these people notable? Is Mr. Rubinstein anymore notable than the others? (E.g., I am skeptical about the whole lot, but this one is a good place to start.) – S. Rich (talk) 06:09, 30 August 2014 (UTC) Added: My skepticism about the "whole lot" is poorly worded. I really mean those people with only a DID episode as an indication of notability. 16:24, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Clearly some of the others are notable for other things besides this (David Attenborough, frex), but if appearing on the program is a person's only substantive claim of notability then I say delete. Bearcat (talk) 07:36, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Anyone who appeared on DID was clearly notable, not only by virtue of having an entire BBC documentary, broadcast nationally, made about them, but also for whatever reason they were chosen to appear - we just don't know what that is, yet. I'm awaiting a transcript of the programme, in order to establish what that was in this case. Not only that, but there have been well over 2970 people (2992 episodes at the time of writing; a very small number of people have appeared twice) featured on Desert Island Discs. We have an article on each (with just a few still to be written; I did another four yesterday). It would be farcical to have an article about all but one (or even all but a handful). Even WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS specifically refers to sets of a articles (such as those about DID castaways, of which this is one) as a likely exception. To quote:
"If someone were, as part of their reasoning for keep, to say that every other main character in Star Wars has an article, this may well be a valid point. In this manner, using an "Other Stuff Exists" angle provides for consistency."
. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:32, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- OP reply to Andy: In Rubinstein's case, we have a WP:BLP1E/WP:1E situation. If he is clearly notable, where are the other sources that show he was distinguished? The FAQ page for DID says: "How do you decide on who to invite on the programme? Castaways are people who’ve played a significant role in their field or in society and who have a story they’re happy to share...." At least shoeblack Vivian De Gurr St George wrote a book. But did Rubinstein? – S. Rich (talk) 16:24, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The mere fact of having been on a radio or TV show does not, by itself, confer enough notability to keep an article that is sourced only to a primary source evidencing their participation in the show. We do not, for example, automatically keep an article about every single person who ever competed on The X Factor or Britain's Got Talent; we only keep articles about the ones who can be reliably sourced as actually passing a notability guideline for things they accomplished before or after appearing on the show. So while you certainly have a valid point that Rubinstein might have been chosen to appear on the show because he was already encyclopedically notable for other things, the time for an article about him is when you can properly source what those other things actually were — not when the only substantive thing you can say about him is that he appeared on the show. Bearcat (talk) 17:39, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- XFactor and BGT are multi-player game shows, not documentaries, about the sole person discussed on them. Nor is BBC documentary about a person a primary source. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:53, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The "primary source" is not the fact of the program's existence, but the fact that the only cited source for the program's existence is its listing on the program's own website (and even that doesn't provide any substantive information about Rubinstein, but merely mentions his name and lists the albums he picked.) Bearcat (talk) 20:48, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, for consistency. This stub doesn't hurt WP. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:47, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "Consistency" is not a requirement of WP. Reliable sourcing, and the passing of our actual notability criteria, are. Bearcat (talk) 17:39, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- That part was covered by Andy above. Waste of space and time to repeat that more sources will come, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:13, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Consistency better serves our readers, and improves the encyclopedia. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:54, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- If that were true, we wouldn't have any notability criteria to distinguish notable from non-notable members of the same class of topic. We would, for example, have to keep an article about every single writer who ever published a book, regardless of the quality of sourcing that could or couldn't actually be provided, as long as it was possible to verify that the book existed. But that's not how it works — no matter how many books you can verify the existence of, the writer only gets into Wikipedia if you can actually point to reliable source coverage which verifies that they pass one or more of the criteria at WP:CREATIVE. So some writers get in here and some don't — which is inconsistent by your definition, but fully compliant with the purpose of an encyclopedia. Bearcat (talk) 20:55, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect. Per the one source in the article, the BBC link[1], the programme including Stanley Rubinstein is not available. Per the BBC FAQS regarding this series, that although "More than 1450 programmes - from 1951 to the present day - are now available on the website", that "Unfortunately some programmes were never archived or may be missing for legal or other reasons."[2] So, IMO there isn't much reason to think more sources will be available regarding this man. In the unlikely event that a lot more information becomes available, an article can be spun off at this time. For now he can be listed in the parent article. Parabolooidal (talk) 19:07, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I see that Wikipedia:Other stuff exists, an opinion essay that doesn't have consensus, is being used here again for keeping another non-notable stub article. I just don't see how creating a bunch of fragmented stubs referring to Desert Island Discs, when the parent article doesn't explain any of this and remains in poor shape, helps the encyclopaedia. I've asked Pigsonthewing on his talk page. Gerda Arendt, could you explain more thoroughly your thinking on how this "consistency" better serves our readers? Parabolooidal (talk) 20:17, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- And I've replied to you there. There is little chance of the parent article describing the lives of 2900-odd people. In what way is this stub "fragmented"? Now that you have declared Desert Island Discs to be in poor shape, I look forward to your improvements to it; but that's irrelevant to the matter at hand. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:27, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- See my explanation from the BBC website's reasons for omissions of individual items from this series above. Parabolooidal (talk) 21:07, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Being chosen to appear on Desert Island Discs is prima facie evidence of notability as the idea that someone famous enough to be invited to appear on this show would vanish without trace is absurd. In this case, it is easy to find more information about the subject, who was a senior partner of the law firm Rubinstein Nash & Co, which continued the family business of Rubinstein Leggatt & Co, founded at Grays Inn in the 19th century. Andrew (talk) 13:33, 31 August 2014 (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.