Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Higgins


 * 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. CBD 12:50, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Jonathan Higgins

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fictional character whose article composed of a plot-only description of a fictional work without real-world context and who does not meet the general notability guideline as a subject. There are no references independent of the subject from third-party sources and the text appears to be original research mainly. The character is already covered in the article Magnum, P.I., which makes this article a redundant content fork without sources that show the fictional character notability. Jfgslo (talk) 14:00, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  —Jfgslo (talk) 14:05, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  —Jfgslo (talk) 14:05, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions.  —Jfgslo (talk) 14:05, 21 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep doing a bit of narrowing on the default Google News Archive search above shows plenty of RS that discuss the character. So does Google Scholar, for that matter. Not only is the nomination inaccurate and appears to not have followed WP:BEFORE, the article can be improved to include these independent secondary sources and hence is not a candidate for deletion. Jclemens (talk) 00:26, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Your comment assumes that I didn't bother to do a good-faith attempt to confirm that such sources don't exist. I did and if you actually check the links that you provided, you will note that the articles talk about the actor John Hillerman, not the fictional character Jonathan Higgins, or they talk about parts of the plot of the Magnum P.I. series, nothing that shows significant coverage per the WP:GNG, much less significance or reception for the individual fictional character. This is even worse in Google scholar, where all are trivial mentions and plot-related. Furthermore, these are only Google hits, not specific sources. Do not forget that hits do not prove notability. And do not forget that the article is still plot-only which falls into WP:NOT, more than enough to warrant deletion. Jfgslo (talk) 14:22, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I thought it WP:AGF to apply Hanlon's razor and presume that you'd simply not looked for sources, rather than looking for sources, finding what I found, and misrepresenting your findings as "There are no references independent of the subject from third-party sources". Jclemens (talk) 04:31, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep, seems to have pleanty of citable sources out there. Mathewignash (talk) 03:14, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:MUSTBESOURCES Jfgslo (talk) 14:22, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think that is a valid arguement, I DID look and I saw MANY sources out there, I'm not just assuming there are some. also it's poor style to just link to an article without explaining it.Mathewignash (talk) 16:15, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The same can be said when saying that seems to be sources. If you do not point them out, your argument most likely will not be taken into account by the closing administrator. Jfgslo (talk) 15:23, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That essay is a content fork of material rejected during discussion at Wikipedia talk:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, so dependence on such material does not reflect relevant policy. Unscintillating (talk) 00:43, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:MEANING. Even if it's an essay it is also worth of consideration, particularly because WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS establishes: "If an argument for deletion is that the page lacks sources, but an editor adds the missing references, said argument is no longer relevant." For which, by the way, I comment above. Jfgslo (talk) 01:32, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * A content fork of rejected material is still rejected material every time it gets considered; and without regard to how many wikilinks, quotes, and redirections are included in the consideration.  I'd suggest that editors learn more about the structure of WP:N and especially the definition of "notable" there.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:43, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The only person who seemed to "reject" the material was you. If you feel the essay is so unacceptable that it shouldn't be linked to from anywhere, feel free to take it to WP:MFD to gauge what the community's view of it is. Otherwise, stop carping about it. Reyk  YO!  22:10, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It is not surprising that there are no links to support the claim. Unscintillating (talk) 02:40, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - I can't find any reliable third party sources which cover this character in detail. A redirect to an appropriate character listing or the main article can be created later. --Anthem 20:42, 26 May 2011 (UTC) Revert banned editor, see WP:Banning policy.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:39, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Article already has five references, meets WP:GNG.  Google search ["Magnum PI" inurl:higgins "Jonathan Higgins" inurl:jonathan] returns 131 web pages with this character listed in the URL.  It is reliable that these URLs exist.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:43, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note that hit count numbers alone can only rarely "prove" anything about notability and the actual five references are unreliable sources or trivial mentions and none provide significance or reception for the fictional character. The first one, magnum-mania, is a fansite; the second one is about the cast of the series and in Hillerman's part says this about Higgins: "In addition to “Magnum P.I.,” Hillerman has played his character Higgins on three other television shows; the third, fourth and fifth ones are about the TV show and Higgins is mentioned only as part of the plot premise, not addressing the fictional character in detail and no significant coverage per the WP:GNG and without reception or significance, nothing to presume anything different from WP:PLOT. I recommend to interested editors to actually check the content of these three books that have no in-line citations and see for yourselves the actual content related to the fictional character. Jfgslo (talk) 01:32, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * (1) I checked the article and the talk page, no one is questioning the reliability or "triviality" of the five sources there. BTW, there are 25 Google books found on the search for ["jonathan higgins" "Magnum PI"].  Nor has anyone even begun to consider what material is available offline that was written before the WWW came into existence.  (2) Regarding the argument of WP:OR, it is just that, an argument that no one has raised at the article or on the talk page of the article.  The merit of this contention might reduce the existing content in the article, whereas AfD is primarily concerned with notability of the topic as a whole.  (3) Sorry, but the hit count for ["Magnum PI" "Jonathan Higgins"] is either 33,600 or 748, depending on how people count them.  No one has mentioned the hit count.  131 web pages whose URL includes the topic are not a "hit count", those are universal resource locators with the topic embedded in them.  Each such independent web page is verifiably taking "note" or "notice" of the topic; i.e., is evidence that the topic is "worthy of notice"; which is all that is needed in WP:N, that a topic be "worthy of notice".  (4) Keep in mind that we are talking about a US TV-show character that appeared for eight years of episodes, this is already a long run.  Next, no one had heard of the WWW when this TV show went off of the air.  So this character being so widely promoted more than 20 years later evidences a strong WP:NOT "enduring notability".  Unscintillating (talk) 04:43, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * While it is an interesting point, the character still doesn't pass the WP:GNG or WP:PLOT, because that requires tangible evidence, not suppositions about the notability. 1) Even if editors within the talkpage of the article consider the sources reliable, it doesn't mean that they are. Google book hits are the same as regular Google hits. It is when one checks this hits that one notices that all hits are for the TV show, not the fictional character. You can search several non-notable subjects within Google books and you will get hits, but as I said, hits prove nothing regarding notability. If printed material exists then cite it, otherwise it is just speculation which is no basis for WP:V. 2) That the talk page hasn't raised an WP:OR concern, doesn't mean that it is not there. Only two sentences are attributable to a reliable source, the rest is taken by WP:SYNTH. Furthermore, the sections Character and Higgins and Ian Fleming are pure OR. And OR is part of WP:DEL (original theories and conclusions) 3) And is any of this URLs an actual reliable source that address the fictional character directly in detail with reception or significance? The answer is no. Several of them repeat the content of this article, others are for the episode Professor Jonathan Higgins and the rest are pretty much insignificant, but after checking them carefully, none ever passes as a reliable source or give significant coverage per the GNG, so, contrary to what you commented, they are not proof of notability. 4) You are confusing the facts. The TV show is the one that is widely promoted after more than 20 years, not the fictional character. And several other fictional characters were also created before the www but they do provide evidence of notability, like Betty Boop. The evidence is pretty clear that no reliable source treats the character in detail which can permit treating Higgins in an encyclopedic manner by discussing reception and significance of the fictional character, so the subject of the article is plot-only, which excludes it per WP:NOT, and is not supported by reliable sources either. Jfgslo (talk) 14:33, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Nominator has referred us to WP:DEL regarding "original theories and conclusions", but I looked it up and this point is for the "Article", thus the policy point in this context would be an assertion that this article topic, "Jonathan Higgins", has been created by WP:OR. Reliable sources say otherwise.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:15, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I remind you that the article had zero references when originally nominated, making all the content OR. It has not been until Metropolitan90's edits that the article has some sources backing up part of the content, but the majority of the content is still speculation that is not backed up by sources. For example, from Character's background only two sentences are referenced, the rest is WP:Synth and OR. In Character again only two sentences and the rest is OR, such a implying that "He always manages to relate it usually to a story in either". This only shows that the majority of the content can't be backed up or that only those few sentences and the lead section may be appropriate for a merge but not the rest of the article. Jfgslo (talk) 20:00, 30 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 04:18, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep per Unscintillating. I have added a few inline refs to the page. It may need some improvement but it doesn't need to be deleted. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:55, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd like to point out that, while the incline citations have improved a little bit the WP:Synth problems (but not the purely WP:OR ones such as the James Bond claim), the WP:GNG and WP:PLOT still haven't been addressed. Currently there is only one source, Hirschman, which shows something to that effect but it doesn't show reception or significance, merely how the fictional character is represented within the plot and it is a single source. Quoting the actor John Hillerman does not work for notability because, for obvious reasons, he is not independent of the subject and he is not a secondary source. Jfgslo (talk) 16:45, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I just checked the article again, there is no discussion there about WP:SYNTH or WP:OR. Content policy such as SYNTH and OR is not an issue at this AfD, since the nominator has already agreed that there are at least two good sentences.  Here are a couple of relevant sentences from another policy, WP:DEL, "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion."  "Disputes over page content are usually not dealt with by deleting the page, except in severe cases. The content issues should be discussed at the relevant talk page, and other methods of dispute resolution should be used first..."  Regarding WP:PLOT, the nominator may be confusing the name of the shortcut, WP:PLOT, with the actual policy, which reads, "Plot- only description of fictional works."  This article was never a "plot-only" description, and WP:NOT references Manual of Style (writing about fiction).  However, I will note that I don't know what the nominator means by saying that not "discussing reception and significance of the fictional character" means that "the subject of the article is plot-only".  Regarding the comment about WP:GNG, first of all, there are now ten references in the article.  Second of all, a topic under WP:N must be "worthy of notice" whether or not it meets WP:GNG. (See WP:GNG, "A topic for which this criterion is deemed to have been met by consensus, is usually worthy of notice..." ).  It doesn't matter if there are hundreds of sources if the topic is not "worthy of notice".  Likewise it does not matter if there are two (or zero) sources if the topic is "worthy of notice".  The fact is that there are more than 100 web sites that have "noted" this topic in their URL.  This goes right to the definition of notability, "worthy of notice".  These 100 verifiable web sites are not "suppositions", they are not "hits", they are not "noticing the TV show instead of the character", they are "tangible" evidence, and their existence is not "speculation".  It is the name "Jonathan Higgins" that is "worthy of notice".  Unscintillating (talk) 04:15, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:SYNTH and WP:OR still apply because only two sentences of a topic that has not meet the WP:GNG, do not merit an article. The sources have evidenced that the content cannot be improved because all of them show a lack of reception or significance for the fictional character and in none of them Higgins is addressed in detail, at least not in the reliable secondary sources. Jonathan Higgins, the fictional character, as a subject violates what Wikipedia is not because none of the sources has shown that an article about him could be more than a plot-only description of a fictional works and cannot be treated in an encyclopedic manner by discussing the reception and significance of the fictional character because he has no reception or significance in reliable third-party and secondary sources, which is WP:PLOT. Regarding the references, WP:N is clear in that the evidence for notability must come from reliable independent sources and the WP:GNG specifies that the coverage in such sources must be significant. The coverage that the fictional character has demonstrated with the alluded 10 references (of which the majority are for Magnum P.I., not Higgins) is trivial at best or from unreliable sources. "Worthy of notice" for Wikipedia does not come from the number of websites, but from the quality of the actual sources and none of this 100 web site account for a single reliable source with significant coverage of Jonathan Higgins. In fact, the majority of said sources don't even treat Higgins as a subject. The fact that you have to rely on mentioning the number of websites instead of citing the actual reliable secondary sources suggests that there is a lack of multiple sources and that the topic is not suitable for inclusion as a stand-alone article. Jfgslo (talk) 20:00, 30 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm disappointed and disturbed, that the nominator has turned to the ad hominem "you have to rely".


 * WP:N states, "The notability guidelines do not apply to article or list content." By using "WP:OR and WP:SYNTH in the same sentence with WP:GNG, the previous comment doesn't seem to differentiate between content policy and the notability guidelines.  See WP:N.  Also see Category:Wikipedia content policies.  WP:OR and WP:SYNTH are not relevant to this AfD, we have already seen a reference to WP:DEL which would only be relevant to an AfD if the entire topic of "Jonathan Higgins" were WP:OR.  Further, there are no WP:OR or WP:SYNTH discussions at the article, and I've already quoted policy that directs editors to raise such issues on the article pages.


 * Regarding the previous comment's objection to the definition of notability in WP:N, the comment can try to make the case here that the closing admin should ignore the WP:N guideline based on some WP:IAR idea, but whatever happens here isn't going to change WP:N. I'll say it again, the definition of notability takes precedence over WP:GNG.


 * I find it a contradiction to compare the statements, "you will note that the articles talk about the actor John Hillerman, not the fictional character Jonathan Higgins..." and "none of the sources has shown that an article about him could be more than a plot-only description".


 * I also find it a continuing contradiction to compare the statement, "the alluded 10 references (of which the majority are for Magnum P.I., not Higgins)", against the statements seeking to dismiss the existence of 100 web pages with the name "Jonathan Higgins" in the URL.


 * As for the alleged problems with eight of the ten (or is it ten of the ten) sources, I keep wondering why this point is not important enough to raise it at the article and get some other editors involved to either fix the problem or get some agreement that the sources have a problem. Unscintillating (talk) 01:56, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. No reason to believe that at any point this will extend beyond a plot summary; this character and series has been extant for many years and as yet, there are few to no WP:RS that have a thorough, in-depth discussion of the character's real-world notability. If I were to remove all of the WP:PRIMARY sourced summary from this article, we wouldn't have anything left, and as our policies state, we build articles with secondary sourcing, not primary. As it is, the arguments to keep this article are based on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and the idea that if a character's name is mentioned on the internet, that he must somehow meet WP:GNG. I'm afraid it isn't so. — Chromancer  talk/cont 12:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Did you read JClemens first comment about Google scholar? If so, why did you not refute the sources in your analysis?  Where is the "OtherStuffExists" argument?  Unscintillating (talk) 17:24, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:GNG, no real-world context either. --Crusio (talk) 12:16, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Does the previous !voter want to present evidence that this fails WP:GNG? How about the links that JClemens found; for example, Thighs and Whiskers: The Fascination of 'Magnum, pi'  Screen (1985) 26(2): 42-59, Oxford University Press, and its coverage of Jonathan Higgins?  That seemed to be relevant when it said, "Finally, Magnum's bantering adversary, the overwhelmingly British Jonathan Higgins, veers between obsessive propriety and excessive gallantry, his suave sophistication and urbanity acting as a foil to Magnum's all-American naturalness, ease and spontaneity."  According to the Wikipedia article, the journal Screen "is still highly regarded in academic circles."  How does anyone explain the bumper stickers and T-shirts for the 2012 US presidential election, "MAGNUM-HIGGINS", or the "Magnum Higgins" jeans that are selling for $185–without noticing the topic Jonathan Higgins?  Unscintillating (talk) 17:24, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  — -- Cirt (talk) 17:37, 3 June 2011 (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.