Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Higgins (2nd nomination)


 * 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. some improvment - clear consensus to keep (non-admin closure) Off2riorob (talk) 14:31, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Jonathan Higgins
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

The previous AfD resulted in a no consensus. Despite the time given since the previous AfD, the article still has no reliable secondary sources independent of the subject that provide analytic or evaluative claims about the fictional character himself. All that the article has are sources that talk about the real-life actor, such as sources mentioning that he won an Emmy for his performance and sources providing a biography of the actor, which are more appropriate for the actor's article, or sources about the series in general, where the character is only mentioned as part of the plot, still nothing to presume that the fictional character is notable beyond the plot of the series. Because of this, I still see no evidence that the character meets the general notability guideline as a stand-alone subject since there is no significant coverage of the character in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. The article itself provides mostly a summary-only description of a fictional work about the character, and this is combined with a small biography of the actor, which is not the subject of the article. The article does not provide a single reliable secondary and uses instead a fansite and tertiary sources to barely reference the character from a plot-only perspective. The bibliography section of the article also doesn't provide secondary sources for the character, and none of the sources in all the article provides reception or significance for the fictional character from a real world perspective, only from a plot-only perspective. Removing the content that is more appropriate for John Hillerman's article, like John Hillerman and Simon Brimmer, and removing the unsourced material, like the Higgins and Ian Fleming section, the character can be perfectly covered in the main article Magnum, P.I.. As it is, this article is an unnecessary split that does not meet the general notability criterion or any other the specific notability criteria, and, therefore, should be deleted as it is still a redundant content fork of the main article. Several search engine tests done now and during the previous AfD, do not show anything to presume that the fictional character is appropriate for a stand-alone article. Jfgslo (talk) 14:45, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  —Jfgslo (talk) 14:50, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  —Jfgslo (talk) 14:50, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions.  —Jfgslo (talk) 14:50, 17 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete After researching a bit, and checking out the actual citations, I think the nom is correct here. It isn't that this fictional character wasn't interesting, or a significant part of the series, it is simply that the character did not get significant coverage outside of the show.  The citations themselves are not focused on the character, only on the the series, to which the character is mentioned.  Since no coverage exists that is both meaningful, substantial and primarily about the character only, then it would appear that the article is an unreasonable fork from the main article.  Dennis Brown (talk) 15:58, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Magnum, P.I. - where the section about Jonathan Higgins could be expanded slightly. --MelanieN (talk) 16:14, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * KEEP, a quick look online news finds yet more article from reputable third party sources about the character and how the real life actor played him. I added yet another source to the article from the Chicago Sun Times. This is a very notable character who has had tons of material written about him and his real world connections. Just look here http://www.highbeam.com/Search?searchTerm=%22Higgins%22+magnum and you can add a dozen good sources to this article. Mathewignash (talk) 17:54, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep sources were demonstrated in prior AfD; the fact that they have not been added to the article is not a cause for deletion. Rather, it demonstrates that the nominator has either not understood or complied with out deletion policy's expectations: sources existing but not yet added to the article is not a cause for deletion. Jclemens (talk) 23:13, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Citations that are mainly about John Hillerman, the actor, or about the show itself, are not "significant coverage", per WP:SIG. Being mentioned in an article or the character being discussed, but not the primary focus of the article is NOT "significant coverage".  That is the issue.  The character has been talked about, granted, but a few paragraphs in an article that is focused on something else clearly fails WP:SIG.  Dennis Brown (talk) 19:00, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The lede of WP:SIG begins, "Signing your posts on talk pages, both in the article and non-article namespaces, is a good practice, and facilitates discussion by helping identify the author of a particular comment." The words "significant coverage" do not appear in a search.  FYI, Unscintillating (talk) 01:20, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * This got me wondering what WP:SIGCOV or WP:GNG says. Here's a quote just so we know.
 * '"Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material."
 * plus
 * "Examples: The 360-page book by Sobel and the 528-page book by Black on IBM are plainly non-trivial. The one sentence mention by Walker of the band Three Blind Mice in a biography of Bill Clinton (Martin Walker (1992-01-06). "Tough love child of Kennedy". The Guardian.) is plainly trivial." - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 06:23, 21 September 2011 (UTC) I changed some indentation to make it easier to read. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 06:43, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment The "Keep" voters might consider shopping for some "Vote Magnum-Higgins 2012!" tee-shirts. (For those outside the US, these tee-shirts promote voting for Magnum for President, and Higgins for Vice-President, in the November 2012 US presidential election.)  Opposition positions need to explain how a supposedly non-notable character, Higgins, can be such a strong part of the American psyche that 20 years after the show has ended, the character draws political attention.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:44, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply Then WP:SIGCOV, which I'm sure you already knew, and doesn't diminish the point. And this isn't a WP:VOTE.  It is supposed to be a discussion.  Anyone can make a Tshirt that says anything and offer it for sale with CafePress or SpreadShirt, and it costs $0 to do so.  I could make one that says "Dennis Brown is Notable", but that is not evidence that I should have an article here. The main point is that in order for the article to exist on Wikipedia, those requesting delete do not have to prove anything, it is upon the people wanting to keep the article to demonstrate it meets the criteria for inclusion.  That is how AFD works and always has.  At this point, I still haven't seen anyone demonstrate that the character has had significant coverage by any reliable 3rd party, only incidental coverage when discussing the show and/or actor himself.  Dennis Brown (talk) 12:27, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - Significant coverage exists. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 17:46, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. WP:SIGCOV has been invoked here as a reason for deletion on the basis that the subject is not the main topic of the sources, but that guideline actually says, "significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material". The sources presented clearly meet that requirement. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:06, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: Note that, per WP:GNG, significant coverage needs not be the main topic of the source material but it needs to be more than a trivial mention. The proposed sources are not significant coverage:
 * Book Crime television by Douglas Snauffer: A tertiary source about crime TV shows, which only discusses Higgins as part of the plot of the series, never mentioning reception or significance for the character outside of the show. If this source shows notability is for the Magnum, P.I. series, not the individual character, barely mentioned as part of the plot of the show.
 * Newspaper Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Apr 28, 1983, article by Judy Flander: Not even a review or critical commentary for the character, only one mention that, as part of a then future episode, a brother of Higgins was going to appear on the show. A trivial mention like this (a single sentence) does not show notability nor does it show anything beyond the plot of the series.
 * Newspaper The Press-Courier, May 24, 1981, article by Jerry Buck: An article about John Hillerman, the actor, not Higgins, the fictional character. On top of that, Hillerman is the one commenting about the character, which makes it a primary source, unsuitable for notability.
 * Newspaper The Leader-Post, May 23, 1981, article by the Associated Press: Another article about Hillerman where Higgins is only mentioned once. A trivial mention which does not show notability.
 * Newspaper Record-Journal, Jul 22, 1985, article by Vernon Scott: Once again a small article about Hillerman where he mentions his role as Higgins.
 * Check them out for yourselves. These sources are a very good example of the lack of significant coverage that the fictional character has. What these sources show is that John Hillerman is a notable actor, known for his portrayal of a fictional character, not that the fictional character is notable.
 * What's more, as stated in the WP:GNG, significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion, and without reliable secondary sources making analytic or evaluative claims about Higgins, this is still WP:PLOT, part of WP:NOT, thus making the subject of the article unacceptable for Wikipedia. If anything, these sources show that Higgins as a fictional character does not have reception and significance beyond the plot of the series. Jfgslo (talk) 02:21, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I put some of my money where my mouth is. I added some info from the post gazette, since the first ref I found was already in it.  It was more than a single sentence.  It also helped to contextualize Higgins in the show, which was nice.  It's nothing crazy, but more than trivial (it was one para).  It kinda seems like you would prefer that the character not be notable, as opposed to being impartial and interested in whether the character is notable or not.  I had to look through about 20 fictional articles nominated for deletion to find one that was notable so I knew doing some research would be fruitful, but when I saw Higgins I knew I had found one.  I'm 37 years old, so I may know something you don't, but Higgins was freaking huge for a few years in the 80s.  Offline sources can probably provide 100 refs.  Thankfully more than two are available online.- Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:51, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep – Meets WP:N notability with significant coverage in reliable sources, as demonstrated by Peregrine Fisher. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 05:36, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep – See and refs in article. Northamerica1000 (talk) 05:31, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep This is another case of improve, don't delete: For a television character who last appeared on the air 23 years ago, expectations have to be set appropriately.  This isn't John Hillerman writing his own articles promoting the DVD sales of Magnum PI, it is a reporter selecting the actor Hillerman and his character Jonathan Higgins for an interview.  It easily satisfies our tests for reliability and independence.  The article as written passes GNG.  Magnum PI was highly rated show and Higgins a principal character in it for all 8 seasons - that is the claim to significance - and similar claims are made throughout television-related articles in Wikipedia. Note, the only actual primary source for Higgins would be the actual dialog spoken by the characters in the series. patsw (talk) 18:36, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep The arguments of the nomination at the first AfD were refuted, the closing administrator for that AfD has not been active, so we don't know why the article was closed as a "no consensus" rather than as a "keep", but we know that the close was contaminated by a sock puppet.  A closer review of the current nomination does not verify that the nomination has advanced a reason for deletion.  If the article were "a summary-only description of a fictional work", we'd need to consider deletion under WP:NOT policy, but from the nomination's viewpoint, the article is "mostly" a summary-only description, i.e., the nomination agrees that the article is not a summary-only description.  The remedy for the other issues mentioned, specifically notability and a redundant content fork, have as their remedy a merge of the reliable material, not a deletion.  As per my statement at the first AfD, "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) 02:06, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep More than notable. There were many camera interviews conducted in the 1980s of Hillerman focusing on Higgins. Unfortunately, much of that video does not show up on Google. A Google search is not the end all be all. See WP:BURO--Larp30 (talk) 23:15, 23 September 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.