Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pete Nottage (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   delete. Stifle (talk) 08:35, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Pete Nottage
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non-notable person, no evidence that he's been the subject of reliable, independent sources - fails WP:BIO, WP:RS andy (talk) 15:54, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. I'm willing to reconsider if more sources come to the table, but what's in the article now either isn't significant coverage or doesn't establish him as a notable individual. —C.Fred (talk) 15:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Clearly notable, not least as a nominee for a Sony Radio Award. I was in the process of improving the article and adding refs when this AfD was posted. As noted on the talk page, it had already been considerably expanded since the prior deletion. Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note - it was the radio station that was nominated, not the subject of this article. andy (talk) 16:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes... awarded to the station... but as the hosting station of the listed individuals involved in production. Without them, there would would have been no award.  Kinda like in baseball or hockey... winning a Pennant or a Stanley Cup is notability for the team that created the circumstances leading to the award.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 22:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delving further, I find that 6 Music did not win that award (and therefore Pete Nottage didn't either). This was merely a nomination. What they actually won is given here - awards for Jarvis Cocker, Adam Buxton and Joe Cornish... but not Nottage. andy (talk) 22:49, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You didn't need to delve very far, since I used - deliberately - the word "nominee" not "recipient". Being a nominee - he's named on the awards page - for "[one] of the most prestigious awards in the British radio industry" makes him notable. Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * So please show me where in wikipedia's guidelines being one member of a team that is nominated for an award but fails to win it confers notability. Now winning the award, that's a different thing and in fact 6 Music did win two awards - with Nottage nowhere in evidence. Face it, he's just a guy and no more notable than anyone else who knows one end of a microphone from the other. andy (talk) 23:08, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:ANYBIO... first thing.. "has won or been nominated"... As for members of a team being being notable when the team receives recognition through the efforts of the team... well, those precedents are throughout Wikipedia. For instance, lok at how WP:MUSICBIO deals with notability for individual "members" of notable groups.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 23:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "...nominated multiple times", which he hasn't been, and it is also worth pointing out that "members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles". If you were to extend that to this case, it would mean being redirected to the 6Music article. Quantpole (talk) 07:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Not bad... a merge and redirect would be discussing.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 23:02, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That would be ridiculous, since the majority of his work is for organisations other than 6Music. Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 09:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 20 July 2010 (UTC) F
 * Delete. He appears to be a busy person but he does not seem to have received significant coverage in independent reliable sources, and hence is not shown to be notable at the moment. Of the sources currently in the article, all are trivial mentions, and a couple are not independent. The article contains a lot of information which is completely unsourced. The radio station you worked at being nominated for an award is not an indication of notability to my mind - is it likely that he has received significant coverage as a result? If good sources can be found then I'll change my mind, but not with what is in the article at present. Quantpole (talk) 16:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The Sony Awards page is both non-trivial and independent. The Oxford Mail is also independent. Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * This is turning into a dialogue of the deaf. Yes, the Sony Awards page is a reliable source... and it clearly shows he didn't win anything. And yes, the Oxford Mail is a reliable source... and he's not the subject of an article! So if failing to win anything and failing to gain more than a passing mention confers notability then he's notable. Otherwise... please read wikipedia's guidelines. (Sigh!) andy (talk) 23:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Since nobody has claimed that he won anything, it would seem to be you who is not listening. I was thus not refuting a claim that he didn't win; but that the mention was trivial. It is not. Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:41, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean now - by 'trivial mention' I meant the coverage. The award nomination in itself may not be trivial, but there is nothing in that source beyond the nomination, no biographical or work details, so I do not consider it to be significant coverage and hence 'trivial'. I should have perhaps used a more precise wording. Quantpole (talk) 12:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The same goes for the Oxford Mail article, which is simply an event listing. The source isn't trivial but the coverage certainly is - literally, just a mention. andy (talk) 12:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

from looking at the talk section and history of the page it looks like many other links that provided exaples were offered but unfairly denied by an admin without a seconds thought —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.248.61 (talk) 17:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that is incorrect - no one has 'denied' anyone anything - they have offered advice as a more experienced user. I don't think the person offering the advice was an admin either. And it looked like they did consider the sources that had been offered, but they were simply not what wikipedia has decided to accept. It might seem strange if you are new around here, but the policies on sourcing and so on have been discussed at very great length over a long period of time, and there is actually good reason for them. Quantpole (talk) 19:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I have known some Wikipedia pages for much lesser known stars to still be around, so I don't see why this page should get removed when it's not doing anything wrong. tomo359 (talk) 20:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.109.95.151 (talk) — 91.109.95.151 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep Pete Nottage is quite a popular voice over artist in the UK and many of his fans will likely want to find out more about him and other work he has done which is why I think this page should be kept so fans can find more information about him. If you think the page needs more information or tidying up I am happy to do anything I can and get some information from Pete himself on Twitter.

i have found a coupl of more websites with details on. 1 is another news site about the oxford thing http://fashionmovement.blogspot.com/2009/04/channel-4s-pete-nottage-to-host-catwalk.html and i have found the original interview what is saved on the main page as a pdf. i found it through archive.org http://web.archive.org/web/20071206211430/http://www.theanchorwoman.com/2007/11/30/pete-nottage/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.244.197.164 (talk) 16:24, 21 July 2010 (UTC)  and there is also this to http://radiotalent.co.uk/profile_show.php?id=7380&usertype=Presenters&page=&search=nottage
 * The first reference is a blog, and Nottage is not the subject of it anyway; the second reference is also a blog; the third reference is promotional. None of these count as reliable sources. WP:BIO requires substantial or widespread coverage in reliable and independent sources. andy (talk) 17:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment Perhaps people aren't aware that Channel 4 is one of the UK's only five national free-to-air terrestrial TV channels. Here are the search results for "Peter Nottage" "channel 4". [[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett] (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:00, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Proving what? As a presenter he's bound to be mentioned in various places. But if you scroll through the results you'll find that there are actually 67 hits, not one of which supports a claim of notability. andy (talk) 10:07, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I personally couldn't care either way, however if some voice artists have got pages for doing far less than him then surely in the interests of fairness then he should have one too? in terms of other pages its just taken a two second search and i've found wikipedia pages for people who appear to have done muxh less. Equality for all, and everything... J —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.248.51 (talk • contribs) 11:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Other stuff exists. Whether or not other voice artists of similar/lesser standing have articles is not a factor in whether this page should be kept. The issue is this article, this presenter, and whether he has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. —C.Fred (talk) 12:07, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Surely the evidence provided on the page in terms of examples of his work, coupled up with links to his talent agency suggest he is a more than credible source? He's certainly done more than a lot of us have? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.248.34 (talk) 00:25, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable ordinary voiceover announcer. Coverage not substanstial enough to meet WP:CREATIVE. Vanity article. Christopher Connor (talk) 00:46, 25 July 2010 (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.