Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Harrigan


 * 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   merge to FoolishPeople. Biographies with many citations fall into two categories; the obviously notable, and the probably-not-notable-but-citing-everything-to-get-over-the-bar type. This clearly falls into the second category. This is an odd AfD because we have few actual !votes but a lot of discussion. The analysis by Singularity42 is notable, however, and I believe shows that the subject has practically no individual notability. It would have been easy to close this AfD as "no consensus", but I suspect we would have just ended up with another AfD at some point. By closing as Merge, we can keep any useful information, and the edit history, so that the article can be re-created if the subject clearly passes the BIO notability bar in the future. Black Kite (talk) 15:11, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

John Harrigan

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not meet WP:BIO. The company he founded, FoolishPeople is arguably notable. But notability is not inherited. The reviews of the works cited don't go out of their way to note the subject in any detail. Singularity42 (talk) 00:04, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  Cameron11598  (Converse) 00:33, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  Cameron11598  (Converse) 00:33, 14 March 2013 (UTC)


 * In the UK John Harrigan is notable because people know of his work as FoolishPeople and the fact he has written and directed all of FoolishPeople productions to date. It might be hard for someone outside the UK to judge notability of the subject. Last year he worked with Conway Hall the oldest freethought society in the world. This is cited in the article. I've recognised the article was nominated for deletion only 12 minutes after moving it to the main namespace. I question this to be enough time to judge notability for the subject and all cited articles to be reviewed in this short time. The majority of John Harrigan's work is also listed on Doollee, The Playwright Database. I've cited this on the article now. I think he fullfills most of Wikipedia's artist /creative professionals criteria for inclusion. My last edit from today is about the unique performance practice he developed over many years called Theatre of Manifestation. Mirjam Behne (talk) 08:58, 14 March 2013 (UTC)


 * In case anyone has any issues with the timing of this nomination and WP:BEFORE, I was familiar with the subject from the previous attempts to create this article. Singularity42 (talk) 10:47, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * This is not to complain but for understanding your decision. I'm quite new to Wikipedia but I really think John Harrigan and also his company FoolishPeople is worth of being in this free encyclopedia. He and his work has made widely recognised contribution and he is outstanding in his field. I put a lot of hard work into the research of this subject and its work. I've been to many of John Harrigan's live events and also own all of his published scripts mentioned. I did not know that there has been others before trying to create an article under this namespace and I was just wondering why the article had been nominated immediatly. The person/subject is known for originating significant new concepts, theories and techniques. He has won significant critical attention and has been a substantial part of significant exhibitions. The subject worked with major art institutions and others, such as the Institute of Contemporary Arts and The Conway Hall Ethical Society. The subject also meets all the basic notability criteria. I've been carefully researching secondary sources which are reliable and independent. The primary sources are only mentioned as external links. I made additional edits that verify the notability of the subject. If this is still not enough to verify the notability of the subject, could you please tell me why the subject is not meeting the creative professional creteria? Thank you in advance. Kind regards. Mirjam Behne (talk) 15:48, 14 March 2013 (UTC)




 * Keep I've made more additional edits to verify the subject by citing the occupations of the subject. It would be very kind if someone again could review the article for John Harrigan. I will also continue improving the article. Help and suggestions are welcome. Thank you. Mirjam Behne (talk) 01:30, 16 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment Even with the recent additions, I think my original concern is still correct - that it is FoolishPeople that is notable, that it's creator, John Harrigan. One of the recent additions was that he receved an award called the "Magi of Trygonia".  However, Google searches seem to indicate this was an award created by a small group specifically to be handed out to the subject in 2006, and then never mentioned again, except for bios released by the subject or his company.  I really don't think it is the type of award that we usually mean to say someone meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Singularity42 (talk) 13:22, 16 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Comment FoolishPeople was the name John Harrigan used to create work under. Quote: “FoolishPeople was founded in 1991 as the name under which John Harrigan developed and created live art and theatre” - Doollee Playwrights Database FoolishPeople is a collective that is notable and John Harrigan as a person and subject of the article as well is notable due to the fact his work has been presented at one of the most important and major art and cultural institutions in the UK, the Institute of Contemporary Arts, where he was also invited to speak about the themes and content of Dead Language. Under Wikipedia's own guidelines for artists he meets the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia for this fact. The award might not meet the notability guidelines but he has been awarded with it so it's worth to be mentioned anyway. Also Wikipedia states the fact that being famous or popular already is secondary for inclusion into the encyclopedia. John Harrigan is notable for many other reasons and other additions has been made to the article as well. He has written and directed every single FoolishPeople project and he is also notable for his development of a unique form of theatre practice, Theatre of Manifestation. FoolishPeople would not exist without his continued authorship of scripts and directorial work. Mirjam Behne (talk) 16:35, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Struck out duplicate !vote. Singularity42 (talk) 23:10, 16 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep and expand with other work unrelated to FoolishPeople. Much of his individual work is published under his name alone, not under FP.  And his recent work on Citizen Y is unrelated.  – SJ +  02:20, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. The Wired web article is the only one cited in the article that's really coverage in a reliable source, and that doesn't say much about Harrigan. I didn't find much else. --Michig (talk) 10:01, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 12:45, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Relist comment - Instead of juts asserting or denying that reliable sources exist, it would probably be more productive to list some of the sources here and discuss their merits, as that is ultimately what will determine the result of the AfD. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 12:46, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment on sources. Good point, ItsZippy.  Here's my thoughts.
 * Sources for references 8, 12, 13, 17, 19, 20, 24, and 26 makes no mention at all of Harrigan, and does not support Harrigan's notability.
 * Sources for references 1, 6, 7, 11, 22, 25, 27, and 30 mentions Harrigan, but in his capacity as a director for FoolishPeople while talking about a FoolishPeople production, or in a very minor passing (note that some of these references use identical sources).
 * The source for references 2 and 10 is a blog entry created by the subject himself.
 * The source for reference 9 makes mention of the "award" I criticized earlier as not supporting notability.
 * The source for reference 5 is a database entry with no rules about who is included.
 * The source for reference 28 is the forward from Harrigan's published script, and not independent.
 * The sources for reference 31 and 32 are self-published interviews (by "self-published", I mean blogs, etc.).
 * The source for reference 18, 23 is the same podcast interview with Harrigan, but I'm not sure if it is a source that is considered reliable for the purpose of notability.
 * I don't know what the source is for reference 3.
 * The source for reference 14 is a broken link.
 * That leaves the source for references 4, 21, and 33 which is the same interview with Harrigan, and the sources for references 15, 16, 29 which are reviews of FoolishPeople productions that note Harrigan in the credits. I do not believe those last few are enough to support notability. Singularity42 (talk) 14:00, 23 March 2013 (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.