Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Atherton (3rd 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 no consensus defaulting to Keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination.However I would suggest a cooling off period of not less than six months before sending this back up. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:05, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Paul Atherton
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails GNG. Many brief mentions but no in-depth coverage. HouseOfChange (talk) 04:53, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:07, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:07, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:08, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 09:37, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Votes

 * Keep. Unfortunately Google can not be deemed a useful source in this instance. It measures popularity and not notability. It's nature of not holding much information and then not for long, means much press about this subject is not shown, with many of the notable events discussed being over a decade old (and many predating the Internet all together). But the press would still be retrievable through such things as the British Newspaper Archive but this research would require an in person search as many of the publications there have yet to be digitised. The Western Mail one of the papers cited on the Bio for example is only digitised up to 1959 https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/titles/countries/wales


 * But notability as defined by Wikipedia is "the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice"[1] or "note"[2]—that is, "remarkable"[2] or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded"[1] within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life. "Notable" in the sense of being famous or popular—although not irrelevant—is secondary."


 * I believe under that criteria, the subject's video diary being taken into the permanent collection of The Museum of London https://collections.museumoflondon.org.uk/online/object/951647.html/ would suffice in its own right. However the subject has five films collected in the UK's National Film Archive The British Film Institute and obviously remains the only person to have shown a film on the video Billboards at Piccadilly Circus the cause for the original entry being accepted in the first place. https://londontopia.net/site-news/featured/london-places-10-facts-figures-piccadilly-circus-london-probably-didnt-know/ 144.178.8.38 (talk) 15:24, 24 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Reply Wikipedia has criteria for the notability of creative professionals e.g. "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work..." Having a film about Piccadilly Circus shown at Piccadilly Circus, or having a film about London's history included in a collection of "over a million objects" (to quote the website you link to above) do not match our criteria for significant creative work, in my opinion. There is even less indication that Atherton meets WP:GNG, which requires significant, in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the bio subject. There seem to have been brief flurries of interest in his being a foundling, or biracial, or disabled, or having a lawsuit, but most of these seem to be a direct result of great energy spent on self-promotion. 16:00, 24 March 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by HouseOfChange (talk • contribs) 16:00, March 24, 2019 (UTC)


 * Reply I would counter saying that the only non commercial film to have garnered permission to be screened on one of the world's most famous advertising hoardings | Piccadilly Lights in one of the world's most popular tourist attractions Piccadilly Circus is indeed notable in its own right. The fact that film. along with others in the series, equally broadcast onto other noted globally recognised London Landmarks Trafalgar Square and Leicester Square were then deemed worthy of inclusion into The British Film Institute undeniable makes them significant and by association the person who produced and directed them.


 * "An extract from the British Film Archive Collecting Policy to be found as a Download


 * 4.2 Cultural significance


 * 25. The overriding criterion for acceptance into the national collection of moving image material for the United Kingdom is that the work should be of cultural and/or historical importance to the British people, recognising the diversity of British communities.


 * 26. Because this is the national collection of moving image material in the UK, acquisition of British-produced and British-related material will be prioritised over non-British material, especially for the preservation collection. However, much non-British material is also of cultural importance and some non-British material may be highly relevant to particular cross-cultural audiences for the reference collection.


 * 27. The bfi does not aim to hold a comprehensive collection, even for British- produced material. It aims to collect works that have or had real cultural impact, or historical significance, or that are highly representative of production, society or cultural values, or which are valuable for educational purposes or as information resources for study. Examples include: - High quality productions, where the production values and treatment are of a high artistic merit or information content."


 * As for the subject's diary (albeit in Video Form) being accepted into the Museum of London with a supporting exhibition about its inclusion, again, clearly makes the subject notable along with the likes of the diarist Samuel Pepys whose diary (albeit a | copy) is also in the collection


 * "The Museum of London’s collection, called the London Collection, has developed over the last 190 years. It is the world’s largest relating to a single urban centre over a 2,000 year period and the most important source for the material evidence of London’s history. It includes collections from two precursor museums: the Guildhall Museum and the London Museum." Museum of London Collections Policy


 * Again, I would suggest your contentions are giving too much weight to the Google Search Engine or what is found online and not recognising the import of curatorial decisions by globally recognised institutions. 144.178.8.38 (talk) 15:44, 26 March 2019 (UTC)


 * You said,
 * No, it's not. We evaluate Notability using Wikipedia policy and guidelines, and there's nothing in the guideline about world-famous tourist attractions.
 * You said,
 * This is all completely irrelevant. You puff up your arguments here, without regard to what policy says. How long the London Collection has been around, or how large it is, or how important it is, is not connected with Wikipedia's policy on Notability. Ditto Picadilly Circus. Please quote policy and guidelines about notability, not the importance of your sources from some non-Wikipedia source.
 * Here's what WP:N says about Creative professionals in bullet 4: The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. Does it meet any of (a)–(d)?  If so, please demonstrate it.  If not, it fails WP:ARTIST. You're closest on (d); find a couple more substantial exhibitions in other museums, and you may have it.  Even if not, it may still meet some other portion of the Notability guideline, but you'd have to demonstrate that it does. Mathglot (talk) 21:34, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * This is all completely irrelevant. You puff up your arguments here, without regard to what policy says. How long the London Collection has been around, or how large it is, or how important it is, is not connected with Wikipedia's policy on Notability. Ditto Picadilly Circus. Please quote policy and guidelines about notability, not the importance of your sources from some non-Wikipedia source.
 * Here's what WP:N says about Creative professionals in bullet 4: The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. Does it meet any of (a)–(d)?  If so, please demonstrate it.  If not, it fails WP:ARTIST. You're closest on (d); find a couple more substantial exhibitions in other museums, and you may have it.  Even if not, it may still meet some other portion of the Notability guideline, but you'd have to demonstrate that it does. Mathglot (talk) 21:34, 5 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep WP:ANYBIO Lubbad85 (talk) 15:02, 26 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete The article appears to be made up of self-aggrandizing half-truths and exaggerations which make it almost impossible to ascertain notability. For example the article claims Atherton performed as an actor in the acclaimed stage production 'You Me Bum Bum Train' - this production famously used unpaid volunteers as "performers" and literally anyone who signed up on their website could "perform." It claims he was named as a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts which sounds like a highly prestigious award, in reality it is simply the RSA's membership scheme which anyone can purchase online in under 30 seconds. It claims he was a performer at Notting Hill Carnival, but the cite is a just a YouTube video which does not identify him, and again any member of the public can sign up to perform there. Some citations do not mention Atherton. Other things like winning random Internet competitions (especially ones where the only citation is the subject's own Twitter account) clearly have no place here. The article really needs a diligent editor to go through and properly fact check all the claims made and remove all the irrelevant self-cited bumpf before a case for notability can be made.85.211.202.126 (talk) 21:24, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Reply This statement would imply an edit rather than a delete. Any comments in respect to the notability of the subject being included in the Museum of London? 144.178.8.38 (talk) 13:54, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, here. Mathglot (talk) 21:39, 5 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete. Wikipedia is not a means of promotion and is not a collection of trivia. This is from the first a piece of overly self serving spam. Exaggerating, presenting run of the mill as noteworthy, peacocking. This needs a dose of TNT even if he is notable. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:55, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Reply I would suggest your comments are about the past ten plus years of Wikipedians editing rather than whether the subject is notable or not (which is the contention of the Deletion request) duffbeerforme. Any comments or thoughts about the significance of the subject's diary being deemed worthy of (as far as I can see) being the only video-dairy collected into the Museum of London's permanent collection (see collections policy above)?144.178.8.38 (talk) 11:56, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Does not meet WP:NARTIST. See above. Mathglot (talk) 21:42, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 07:38, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Reply Out of interest, I just did a News Google search using "Paul Atherton" & "Producer" and found the following four articles, I'm not sure if it's relevant, but the link in the AfD does not find them (January 2017 - March 2019) and I'd argue whilst they are not substantive, it does demonstrate the problem with search engines.


 * City A.M. - | Goodbye Piccadilly: A short history of the Piccadilly Circus advertising billboards "...Paul Atherton screened the only non-commercial film there, The Ballet of Change..." - 16 January 2017


 * The Sun (United Kingdom) - | What Is Chronic Fatigue Syndrome? "...Other celebs that are believed to battle with the condition include film producer Paul Atherton" - 16th June 2017


 * The Guardian - | I allow myself a mini-wallow': how to handle rejection in the arts "...this worked for Paul Atherton, an experienced producer and managing director. After he missed out on a “heaven sent” opportunity to co-write a play with his favourite playwright..." - 9 August 2018


 * Tate Modern - Talk - | Welfare and the digital lie, problems of Digital Exclusion for the poor and the vulnerable in the UK by Paul Atherton FRSA - Beta Society in Tate Exchange - 6 March 2019


 * The Londonist - | Things To Do Today In London: Wednesday 27 March 2019 - "WITHOUT A HOME: An Evening With Paul Atherton" - 27 March 2019
 * -144.178.8.38 (talk) 11:46, 1 April 2019 (UTC)


 * You're right, they're not substantive. Find ones that are, or that meet some other aspect of WP:GNG. Your assertion that "it does demonstrate the problem with search engines" is irrelevant even if it were true; technology failure is not an argument that helps you establish notability. Mathglot (talk) 21:48, 5 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Undecided - Notability may exist independently of references, and conversely, simply having many references isn't sufficient to establish notability. Since this article has 55 references, it's worth examining them to see whether they help to establish notability. I've started a discussion about this below. I plan to change my !vote based on further investigation and discussion. Mathglot (talk) 21:08, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is just an adulatory text (e.g. "At 16 he set up home on his own against the wishes of Social Services", "Starting in 1997 he hosted four parties a year across various London locations", etc) with a plethora of citations (including one from the Sun titled "Charles Props Up Naughty Knickers") whose value sums up to very little. It's indicative of the whole "project" that the section on personal life takes more space in the text than anything else. Subject fails WP:NARTIST. -The Gnome (talk) 10:20, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Discussion
The article currently has 55 references. I wanted to start a discussion to see whether one or more of these are sufficient to establish notability per WP:GNG. No !votes here, please; just discussion about references.

References synopsis
Synopsis of selected citations from version 889204249. (Numbers are clickable.):


 * References in the lead
 * 1. The following appears in the page html code, but is not visibly rendered and is visible to search engines only: "2007 Paul Atherton’s short film 'The Ballet of Change,' exploring the history of the Circus, premieres on Coca-Cola’s LED ad space."
 * 2. This is from website self-publishing site "about.me".
 * Selected references in the Early life section:
 * 3. covers his adoption as an infant in Wales Online, and 4 is substantially the same.
 * 5. A short film which appeared on 4thought.tv but is not available at the given url; the film at the web archive url cannot be played currently, but from the archived viewer comments, it appears to be a short film interview about PA's transracial adoption.
 * 6. A biography printed in The Big Issue street newspaper in 2008. Is this sufficient to meet GNG?
 * 9. A deleted vimeo promotional trailer for the documentary film "What About Me?" about chronic fatigue syndrome by Double D Productions. I'm unable to play the archived copy, but a text link points to whataboutme.biz, which renders a GoDaddy expired domain name page.
 * 10. Dead link to Cardiff Uni Mag. (web archive non-responsive)
 * 11. Incompletely specified citation to Sun newspaper, cannot verify.
 * 12. Incompletely specified citation to Vogue magazine, cannot verify.
 * Selected references in the Career section:
 * 13. PA is the recipient of a "lucky break" of four weeks work experience after being made redundant. 4rfv is an "online directiory for the the broadcast, TV and Film Industry" in the UK, and appears to accept user-submitted content.
 * 14. Sign-in required, but appears to be from the letters-to-the-editor section from Broadcast (magazine).
 * 15. YT video uploaded by PA.
 * 16. An opinion column in the Guardian by PA about Katharine Birbalsingh.
 * 17. PA interviewed on SohoShorts (a blog of Rushes Postproduction) as producer of.
 * 18. Duplicate of 17, on the interviewer Dana Knight's blog.
 * 19. The ref is styled as "Paul Atherton, Q&D Productions (January 2016). 'Our London Lives'" but is a link to about.me/paulatherton, same as #2.
 * 20. YT video uploaded by PA
 * 21. Links to "Online Shop" for "Elastic Knitting Woolen Woman's Ankle Boots..." contains short blurb about PA as director/producer.
 * 22. Dead link due to spurious trailing '=', but video exists on YT and is a promo for "Meet the Critics". PA appears at 0:39 for 1 second, saying, "Meet the Critics" as one of a dozen or so personalities saying that phrase.
 * 23. Dead Twitter link for lineup of Meet the Critics.
 * 24. Eventbrite announcement for "Meet the Critics".
 * 25. Dead Twitter link.
 * 26. ISP parked domain page. Orig url not archived.
 * Selected references in the Personal life section:
 * 27. Dead link redirects to Telegraph home page. Available on web archive; article by PA about 2012 Olympic games.
 * 28. YT clip uploaded by PA.
 * 29. Dead link, not on archive, not discoverable on web, from 2012 Olympics documents.
 * 30. Soft 404 at wendyperriam.com; the soft 404 archived as such at web archive.

(This is as far as I got for now; 25 refs remain to be added here.) Mathglot (talk) 21:08, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Discuss references
The following can be discounted as not contributing to Notability:
 * YT videos: 15, 20, 22, 28 (these are also all SPSes by PA)
 * Unrecoverable dead links and soft 404s: 10, 23, 25, 27, 29, 30
 * Unverifiable: 11, 12. Possibly someone with access to archived newspapers could hunt these down.
 * Articles by the subject of an article (16, 27) generally do not establish notability.
 * Self-published material: 2, 19
 * Trivial mentions (judgment call): 1, 22 probably many of the others

Possibly establishing notability:
 * independent bios: 6 - He's in this paper as "former homeless makes good"; is this sufficient to establish N?
 * difficult childhood: 4, maybe 5 - I'd say these aren't sufficient to establish notability. Local papers have lots of human interest stories of this type, and generally they do not have articles on Wikipedia.
 * disease: 9 - having fatigue syndrome and being the subject of a human interest article about it, is similar to the above.
 * special case: #1 text is visible to search engines, but not to humans viewing the page. Can it still contribute to Notability?


 * I don't currently see anything as definitely establishing notability, but the street news bio (6) is the strongest contender, imho, among the first 30 refs. He may meet WP:ARTIST 4(d), if two additional galleries or museums can be found with his works in their permanent collection. Mathglot (talk) 21:08, 5 April 2019 (UTC) updated by Mathglot (talk) 21:55, 5 April 2019 (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.