Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Dallmeyer


 * 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   speedy keep. I'm going to transcend the normal AfD rules that this be closed after seven days since this situation falls under the speedy keep guideline: "The nominator withdraws the nomination [...] and no one other than the nominator recommends that the page be deleted." Thank you, (non-admin closure) ceradon  ( talk  •  contribs ) 21:36, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Andrew Dallmeyer

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

BLP has sources, but isn't listed as cast member on the claim of notability (the film) Notability (people). Seems borderline, and as a prolific playwright with largely "WP:LOCAL" Scottish sources thought this BLP needs scrutiny, (especially cautious as creator is suspected COI editor from sockfarm of >50-100 accounts at WP:COIN) Widefox ; talk 01:47, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Withdrawn by nominator Agree with everyone that it meets GNG. Anyone can speedy keep. Widefox ; talk 21:28, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * keep Nomination (and interaction history) seems to be more about WP:IDONTLIKETHISEDITOR than about the article content or topic. Dallmeyer himself has a footprint, on even the most cursory glance, where national newspapers treat him as a "veteran playwright" and that's enough for an AfD on a newly created article. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:25, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, WP:IDONTLIKETHISEDITOR is linked at WP:AGF. He may be notable as a playwright... are any of his plays notable? Does he fit that notability standard? As an actor he isn't in the (primary) cast list, which was the notability claim being made here. Widefox ; talk 11:40, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Why do his plays have to be notable in addition? William McGonagall would seem to be the obvious counter-example, as a clearly notable author whose works were rather less.
 * We require attention paid to the person by credible independent sources. We have that. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:51, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually the guideline is WP:ENT 1. "multiple notable films" fail 2. not asserted 3. not asserted. So no (as an entertainer, which was the claim of notability told to me). I'm assuming a playwright is covered by WP:AUTHOR, does he pass that? Widefox ; talk 12:35, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:AUTHOR 1. maybe? 2. not asserted 3. not asserted 4. maybe? Widefox ; talk 12:50, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * What about the general case? We want him to be covered in multiple reliable sources. There are articles written specifically about him, in national publications. Worm TT( talk ) 13:38, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * My nom concern was to see if he's notable per consensus of ENT (as claimed) or seemingly more likely he may pass WP:AUTHOR, but to look at GNG...
 * WP:BASIC "Articles may still not be created for such people if they fall under exclusionary criteria,...such as those listed in What Wikipedia is not." (WP:NOT). NOT has WP:NOTADVERTISING (where WP:COI is a see also). The article has improved, and agree meets GNG, and some of the COI/factual/promotional/POV has been addressed and is fixable. Widefox ; talk 00:02, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * William McGonagall is clearly notable as the "worst poet in history" (and has one notable/notably-bad poem and other quotes). There's no equivalent superlative claim being made here. WP:OTHERSTUFF applies. Widefox ; talk 09:18, 25 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep In depth articles at a local level (Local being the capital of Scotland). Widespread mentions at a national level (Scotland is a nation). Has won a notable award (BAFTA). As Andy points out, he's regularly referred to as a "veteran playwright", his plays have aired on the BBC and have been covered by national newspapers - (eg Playing a blinder on BBC Radio 4, Jan 2002 - covered by Scotland's The Scotsman, UK's Telegraph and even Italy's Il Post). The individual is clearly notable. Worm TT( talk ) 13:38, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * He hasn't ever won a BAFTA. No. A BAFTA Scotland Award is not a BAFTA Award. Different award, event and org arm. I've corrected the article. Widefox ; talk 00:02, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

(Please excuse my newbie entry, I'm afraid I do not understand the protocols and procedures here).

Keep Question: Why is Andrew Dallmeyer a valid entry on Wikipedia?

Answer: He is well known within the theatre business as well as having a good reputation with the general public.

In terms of output he is primarily a writer with over 75 works to his credit, yet he is most highly regarded as a director.

The entry may have placed an incorrect emphasis on his acting but should that warrant deletion? His notable works include "Opium Eater" "Hello Dali" and, especially in America, "Thank God For John Muir".

If I am wrong about the criteria for entry into Wikipedia, I await enlightenment. VanGoeden (talk) 13:52, 24 February 2015 (UTC) — VanGoeden (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * The acting is now de-emphasised. (I already moved it out of the WP:LEDE). We're not judging notability by the actor criteria now. Widefox ; talk 00:22, 25 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 24 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment So we now have an WP:SPA account, making two WP:COI editors. VanGoeden is right - the notability claim appears to be playwright (and lessor stage actor). He's a prolific playwright (as I said in the nom). Still may not meet WP:AUTHOR. Widefox ; talk 00:02, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - there is enough reliable source coverage already in the article to justify inclusion. LOCAL is an essay which explains ideas that have explicitly failed to gain consensus for (not) establishing notability in the general case. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:56, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - I did some copyediting on this article. I would have approved it myself if I had a bit more confidence. I was shaky on the wiki-ability of the article (sources, etc.). The notability of it? Nope. Never questioned that. Passes WP:GNG, and WP:BIO with flying colours. --ceradon ( talk  •  contribs ) 16:54, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 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.