Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nick Philip


 * 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 delete‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Consensus is that sourcing isn't sufficient, and a merger has been discounted for myriad reasons-rendering it not a viable ATD. Star  Mississippi  23:14, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Nick Philip

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST with no significant, independent coverage available. The books cited in the article appear to be trivial mentions, with the remaining few available sources being interviews. The NY Times source is paywalled but seems to be a trivial mention as well.

The unsourced claim regarding being a founding contributor of Wired magazine might suggest notability, but there doesn't seem to be any substantiation for this except this, which is of questionable reliability and is an interview anyway. The Wired (magazine) article does not currently mention him by name at all and I've been unsuccessful in finding anything about him on Wired's website itself.

The article's talk page had someone in 2007 argue for notability but the points appear weak and/or outdated. Regardless, there's a dearth of reliable sources available for many of the claims. Uhai (talk) 05:13, 16 November 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:08, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, Fashion, United Kingdom, England, United States of America,  and California. Uhai (talk) 05:13, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment See also Articles for deletion/Anarchic Adjustment. Uhai (talk) 05:14, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * seems like vandalism to delete this page and the Anarchic Adjustment one, if you feel some of the info is false/fake you could just edit it out, but deleting these pages removes the fact Nick exists and the company he started, even if his name was a pseudo, it is still perfectly valid to be here on Wikipedia, and the company does/did exist, the proof is all the clothing they made Neoterics (talk) 00:25, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Neoterics That is not at all what vandalism is; please see Vandalism. The prime concern of this AfD is Notability, for which Wikipedia's standards are strict, not that there may be unsourced information or misinformation in the article. This discussion is currently trending in the direction of no consensus, meaning the article would be retained. Uhai (talk) 19:40, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep.
 * The books cited in the article appear to be trivial mentions - I disagree, WP:SIGCOV coverage does not need to be lengthy. Being characterized as a leading figure a particular genre or subculture by an authority like Simon Reynolds is not a "trivial mention".
 * I've been unsuccessful in finding anything about him on Wired's website itself. - I had no trouble finding several, and just added two of them as additional citations to the article. I changed "a founding contributor" to "an early contributor" because the source I happened upon is dated 1994 instead of 1993 (Wired's founding year), one would probably need to dig up a separate source about the magazine's early history to investigate this further.
 * Also not sure what outdated refers to. There is no requirement for sources to be recent to count as evidence for notability.
 * I also just added another SIGCOV citation (by David Pescovitz, focusing entirely on the article's subject) from 2016, additional evidence of WP:SUSTAINED coverage.
 * Regards, HaeB (talk) 03:12, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * By outdated I'm referring to what the notability criteria may have been in 2007 on Wikipedia. Maybe having an IMDb page or a product for sale on Amazon could have, alongside other points, justified retention of an article then, however they mean nothing today. I wasn't around this area back then so I wouldn't know. I was not arguing contrary to WP:NOTTEMPORARY.
 * Thanks for finding some additional sources including for Wired, though I'm still unconvinced WP:GNG or WP:ARTIST are met here especially since the reality of his work there may not be as grand as the "founding contributor" claim might have insinuated. And I disagree regarding WP:SIGCOV: it specifically mentions in detail so I would argue coverage should be at least somewhat lengthy. The cited portion of the Reynolds book mentions him once in the thesis statement for the section (pp. 149-150) and has a single paragraph about him, with much of the content of said paragraph being quotations from him (pp. 152-153). Aside from that, pp. 61, 155, and 307 contain additional quotations, each limited to one paragraph each. I don't see how his few mentions in this book are any more than trivial. If he's "characterized as a leading figure" of a genre or subculture, especially given the subject of this book being said genre/subculture, shouldn't there be more? Shouldn't there be a chapter or at least a section of a chapter dedicated to him? Uhai (talk) 05:42, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * I have augmented the article further using yet another SIGCOV RS citation, to i-D magazine. I saw that in the other AfD you had mentioned that piece, arguing that it's an interview [...] so isn't independent. But that doesn't apply the introduction of the piece, which was evidently written by the i-D journalist. (And the idea that a journalist or their publication somehow become closely affiliated with the subject of their coverage in the sense of WP:INDEPENDENT just by talking to that subject would be absurd; in fact, at least in the US, not doing so is considered a failure of journalistic quality standards, at least for some types of coverage.)
 * Thanks for the clarification regarding outdated and your various other thoughtful responses. But I don't follow those arguments for lengthiness requirements - the part of WP:SIGCOV you are referring to continues [...] so that no original research is needed to extract the content, making clear that the detail is a means to an end, an end which is served perfectly well in this specific case. As for If he's "characterized as a leading figure" of a genre or subculture, especially given the subject of this book being said genre/subculture, shouldn't there be more? - I'm sorry, but that argument is entirely off the mark. Simon Reynolds' book is not about a single "genre/subculture" but catalogs an enormous number of them as part of one broad paradigm (or several) spanning multiple decades across multiple countries, i.e. what the author calls "dance culture". The index alone is 21 pages long (I'm looking at the 2012 US edition, rather than the 1999 one currently cited in the article), consisting almost entirely of notable people, bands, venues etc. That's admittedly my subjective impression, but I actually just confirmed it empirically by going through the letter "Z", where all but one of the entries have a Wikipedia article, with the remaining one (Zone Records) being a redirect. And all of these have fewer mentions in the book than Nick Philip. In other words, your counterfactual seems highly implausible. A well-known expert's comprehensive overview, written years or decades after the fact, can't be examined in the same way for the purposes of WP:GNG as a contemporary news or magazine article, or a specialist book entirely devoted to a single obscure niche topic.
 * To clarify just in case and for the record: I didn't create this article and have had some issues with some wordings and claims in previous revisions. But at this point I think WP:GNG is clearly satisfied.
 * Regards, HaeB (talk) 06:40, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Regarding the i-D article: you are correct that I said that and are correct that WP:IS can still apply to the introduction of an interview. However, it is just a brief introduction and context-setter that any interview would have and doesn't really provide the substance I would look for to make a case for WP:GNG. Looking over the article again, I am now a little concerned if it is some sort of paid article because of the number of images at the bottom of the article of the upcoming (at the time of publishing) products along with a link to the store and release date and time for the products. I'm not sure if i-D does paid articles but per WP:VICE it does appear there is not currently community consensus on whether Vice Media publications are reliable. I haven't yet dug into the discussions to see why those who don't think it's reliable think so, whether it's for promotional or other concerns. Of course, there being no consensus doesn't mean Vice Media is not reliable, but I am concerned about i-D and this article in particular. If you or someone else more knowledgeable than I could weigh in, it would be appreciated. If the article is just a "let us interview you for clicks and we'll plug your stuff" type of symbiotic relationship, does this introduce WP:RS concerns—even if no money exchanged hands?
 * As far as the Reynolds book goes, per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS I would not make the case that subjects with fewer mentions in the book than Nick Philip having articles justifies the retention of this one. These subjects may also not be notable or may have more significant coverage elsewhere than what Phillip has. The bigger issue with the book is that Phillip's <6 mentions across it mostly consist of quotations from the man himself.
 * Thanks for the clarification regarding your involvement and previous concerns with the article. While I mentioned in the other AfD that there appears to have been some COI editing on both articles over the years, the reasoning for the nominations comes purely from concerns of notability.
 * This is an interesting discussion so hopefully we can get some participation from other editors as well to arrive at some consensus. Uhai (talk) 12:07, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Relisting comment: I see no consensus here. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:37, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge into Cyberdelic as he does seem to be a part of that movement, but does not merit a stand-alone article. So much of the article is a long-winded description of his day job. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:48, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Generally speaking i-D is a well-reputed fashion magazine, founded in 1980 by a former art director of the British Vogue. (I actually started the German Wikipedia article about it way back in 2005, which the English one was based on ;) WP:VICE isn't really very pertinent here, as none of the community discussions that it summarizes covered or even mentioned i-D specifically (I just checked), and most of them appear to have been about the RS status of Vice (magazine), Vice News and other specific publications rather than Vice Media in general (although I haven't checked in detail).

"let us interview you for clicks" - to repeat myself: the idea that a journalist or their publication somehow become closely affiliated with the subject of their coverage (in the sense of WP:INDEPENDENT) just by talking to that subject would be absurd (in fact, at least in the US, not doing so is considered a failure of journalistic quality standards, at least for some types of coverage). Likewise, insinuating that a news publication can't be regarded as reliable because it publishes articles designed to attract readership (clicks) is far removed from both journalistic practice and Wikipedia policy. As for the particular worry that this article could be a covert promotion (I am now a little concerned if it is some sort of paid article): I'm not too familiar with UK advertising regulations for print and online news media, but I kind assume that they would require disclosure in that situation. (Some other i-D articles do disclose the use of affiliate links, which isn't really a RS concern - the New York Times makes quite a bit of money with these too.) And the mere fact that the article mentions the release date and time for the products (and depicts some of them) is no evidence of that. It is standard practice in reputable fashion media to cover new products, as it is indeed in cultural journalism in general - book reviews in RS publications will usually include specific purchasing information for the book including its price, movie reviews in quality newspapers routinely state "In theaters Dec 1" etc., respected art magazines will cover current exhibitions together with information specifically designed to facilitate visiting that exhibition (museum location, dates etc). And so on - a lot political news coverage is driven by politicians' press releases and announcements, many investigative journalism stories are triggered by what self-interested sources decide to make available to journalists, etc. Now, if all these general facts are new to you, sure, you can worry about symbiotic relationships, earned media, or otherwise engage in generic media criticism. But all this has little to do with whether the publication in question has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy in the sense of WP:RS.

Re OTHERSTUFFEXISTS: That wasn't my argument above when comparing the level of coverage of Nick Philip in Reynolds' book to that of other (undisputably notable) subjects - rather it was a reductio ad absurdum of your shouldn't there be more? argument against notability.

Merge into Cyberdelic as he does seem to be a part of that movement - are there reliable sources supporting that claim? I doubt that it is true; at least the term appears to have never appeared in the article's 17 year revision history. a long-winded description of his day job - what kind of argument is that? Shouldn't an article about an artist or designer actually focus on their work in the profession they are known for? How is this different from articles like say Esther Heins?

Regards, HaeB (talk) 04:54, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Final relist. Has GNG been met? Some dispute over it, more (other editors) eyes may lead to a consensus either way on this issue. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:51, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * , I have struck the merge suggestion. The source I saw is https://jods.mitpress.mit.edu/user/nick-philip/authored but as you point out, not enough to classify him as part of the movement. The difference between Esther Heins and Nick Philip is that she is dead and her work is in the collection of the Boston Museum of Fine Arts. Philip is alive and not verifiably in any notable collections. Best, --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:35, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying. The difference between Esther Heins and Nick Philip is that she is dead and her work is in the collection of the Boston Museum of Fine Arts - death doesn't contribute to notability, but I understand that with the latter part you are referring to WP:ARTIST 4.d). However, that's not the only possible notability criterion here, hence all the conversation above especially about WP:GNG. But come to think of it, your source (the MIT Journal of Design and Science page) says that his design work is included in the permanent collection of SFMOMA, so that would actually count towards WP:ARTIST 4.d) too. Regards, HaeB (talk) 05:08, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The SFMOMA claim is unverifiable. The bio on JoDS can't be considered reliable and I am not finding Nick Philip in the SFMOMA database. Also being dead doesn't confirm being notable, but the subject being alive certainly opens the article up to more scrutiny. The nominator's statement that there is no significant, independent coverage available has not been disproved. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 18:36, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I consider WP:GNG to be satisfied, as detailed above. (Btw, I've also since added another citation, to a Hypebeast.com article.)
 * As for the subject being alive, I still disagree about this being a factor in evaluating notability. Maybe you meant that article about dead people are not susceptible to COI editing (which would be at best half true), or that notable people often attract additional RS coverage upon their death? On that matter, I find it interesting that an obituary on legacy.com is presented as the only independent SIGCOV in the aforementioned Esther Heins article. I'm not sure that Legacy.com can be considered a RS in itself, and its claim that the obituary was also published by the Boston Globe seems very difficult to verify (I am not finding Esther Heins in the online database at https://www.bostonglobe.com/ - a search results in "0 Results for 'Esther Heins'", as does a site search with Google), and leaves open the question whether this was WP:INDEPENDENT coverage written by the Boston Globe's journalists or a paid obituary. (I'm not trying to make an OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument and I'm also not planning to nominate this or other of your articles for deletion. I'm just surprised to see an editor who appears to have created various borderline notable biography articles come up with several spurious deletion arguments here that are not grounded in policy.)
 * Regards, HaeB (talk) 03:12, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, my media skepticism was leaking into my reply. I understand you believe i-D is reputable though it would be nice if there was some discussion in this community regarding i-D's current reliability; it being under the umbrella of WP:VICE should give cause for contemplation at the very least given lack of consensus for other Vice publications being reliable. Though at the end of the day, the i-D article is still an interview, so even if we posit the article isn't paid and i-D is a 100% reliable publication (both of which may very well be the case), there's nothing there, again, besides the brief introduction of the interviewees. Could this introduction be used as a source for some information in the article? Sure—and it is for two sentences, which is about the most you'll get out of it. Does it contribute at all to whether the subject meets WP:GNG? No.
 * The fact that we've dug into this much detail regarding the sources I think is a litmus test for the lack of notability here. When we're debating whether an interview introduction and a few quotes from the subject in a book contribute to a claim of the criteria of WP:GNG being met, the point is proven. The reason some articles like this are stubs and have issues with unverified or unverifiable information—and the reason these things have been the case since the article's inception in 2006—is simply because there's a scarcity of coverage and there always has been. Obviously I'm not the first to believe this given the PROD back in 2007 that was contested by yourself, and what limited coverage has emerged in the years since then has not improved the case for notability. Uhai (talk) 00:05, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * No, the lengthiness of AfD discussion is not is a litmus test for the lack of notability. Rather, what's been taking most room above are multiple spurious arguments for deletion - not just this digression into generic media criticism that I felt compelled to respond to by outlining various journalistic standards, but also other arguments for deletion that either had nothing to do with policy or were factually wrong (say the insinuation that the Wired website does not mention him), and their debunking. In fact, that "litmus test" argument is another such faulty argument in itself. Similarly, I think the claim that the article has been a "stub" and [has had] issues with unverified or unverifiable information [...] since [its] inception in 2006 is rather misleading - the 2006 version cited no references at all and was considerably shorter, whereas most of the information in the present version is well-sourced at this point. I also just removed one remaining unsourced sentence about an exhibition and added another sourced sentence about a different, more recent (2022) exhibition.
 * I have explained in detail above why I consider the i-D and Reynolds SIGCOV and mentioned other SIGCOV too. And we haven't even discussed other existing sources yet, e.g. the 1998 piece from "Shift", a Japanese magazine that I am not familiar with but which appears to have been used by editors in many other articles and which (as article topic) has been a requested article for a long time. Regards, HaeB (talk) 00:44, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * PS: I found another book ("Psychedelics Reimagined", published by Autonomedia in 1999) which based on this Google Books preview is clearly another SIGCOV RS (quoting the article subject at length in one part, and summarizing his views in another, some other pages that mention him are not displayed in this particular preview for me). Regards, HaeB (talk) 00:56, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I think we've both made our opinions quite clear at this point so I will not address further your criticisms of the arguments made here as this discussion may approach WP:BLUDGEON territory. I do hope we can gain participation from other editors otherwise I will give it some time and re-nominate at a later date in another attempt to seek consensus. Thanks for your thoughts and your efforts to find sources and improve the article. Uhai (talk) 02:41, 10 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete: Fails GNG. I do not find the Reynolds book to be significant coverage because the discussion of Philips there is not sufficiently in depth. The i-D interview weakly contributes to notability because although it's an interview, I think i-D is sufficiently reliable and notable in itself such that the fact that they chose to interview him establishes some notability. The Joi Ito Wired article mentions Philip twice, and the author acknowledges that he was the distributor of Philips' clothing. The NY Times and East Bay Express articles contain passing mentions of Philip. The Boing Boing articles and the other Wired article do not discuss Philip in depth either. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:06, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 02:44, 13 December 2023 (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.