Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phil Fletcher


 * 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. after relisting, the consensus seems clear  DGG ( talk ) 02:23, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Phil Fletcher

 * – ( View AfD View log )

He is not notable. – Temporal User (Talk) 00:40, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 01:09, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete He is not a notable puppet maker, according to my search, though he does make puppets.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  02:58, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep He is well known for his work on CBBC and his puppet company The Gluvets. He is a very well known puppeteer and is known for not only contributing to CBBC but to many other projects including puppet festivals and theatre. User talk:Slatifs 09:30, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Disclosure: User:Slatifs is a substantial contributor to the article.
 * this user has been blocked as a sockpuppet. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:00, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

*Strong Keep I agree. Although he may only appear on television in CBBC, he is still very well known and appears in many other puppetry events. User:Slips10 07:30, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment Notability has a specific meaning on Wikipedia. In this case, it would mean that Phil Fletcher has received significant coverage in several reliable, independent sources.  The references now consist of his own website and Facebook page.  Neither is an independent source and do not confer notability. The Facebook page should probably be removed from the article per WP:FACEBOOK.  The Coram website just mentions Fletcher in passing, and contains no significant discussion of him, and is completely lacking in biographical details.  It adds nothing.  A bunch of Google hits doesn't make the case.  So, I ask the two editors who recommended "strong keep" - where are the reliable sources that establish his notability?  I with withdraw my recommendation to delete if high-quality sources providing significant coverage are added to the article.   Cullen 328   Let's discuss it  18:40, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


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


 * Relisting comment: relisting due to sockpuppetry/low participationBeeblebrox (talk) 00:01, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox (talk) 00:01, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep Delete Fletcher does appear to be recognized as some kind of authority in puppet-making, as there is coverage of him as a judge on a puppet-judging contest run by The Puppet Project: .  He has also been nominated for a Children's Award from the British Academy of Film and Television Arts (BAFTA) in the category of Presenter (, p.14).  There's not really good coverage of him in the news (e.g.  and ; but I'm willing to overlook that in light of his nomination and evidence of him as an authority on puppets. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 00:27, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Reply Thanks to I, Jethrobot for taking the time to dig out the best sources on Phil Fletcher. I am not hostile toward Fletcher, and wish him every success.  The issue here is whether these five references rise to the level of significant coverage.  Here's how the General notability guideline defines it: "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."


 * The footnotes in the GNG give the following 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 Martin Walker of the band Three Blind Mice in a 1992 biography of Bill Clinton Tough love child of Kennedy published in The Guardian, which says "In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice." is plainly trivial.


 * Let's look at the five sources (3 through 7) identified by I, Jethrobot: Source 3 is a commercial blog for another puppetmaker who entered a contest. Source 4 is a contest information blog.  Both mention Fletcher in passing as a judge of a non-notable puppet making competition.  There is no detail whatsoever.  Another judge is discussed in a bit more detail in source 3.  Neither of these is a reliable source, and neither provides any detail about Fletcher.  Both are trivial.


 * Source 5 is the nomination for the children's TV awards for BAFTA, which describes his comedy partner Iain Stirling's and his act: "Making entertainment out of links is a real skill. Iain and Hacker are funny, engaging and endlessly inventive".  Two sentences for the two of them.  Is that addressing the subject directly in detail?  It mentions the character he plays, which he didn't create.  By the way, they didn't win that clearly notable award.  However, notability is surely not inherited by the losing nominees.


 * Source 6 mentions him in passing as a "BAFTA nominated puppeteer", which is not significant coverage, and is trivial.


 * Source 7 is significant coverage of his comedy partner, Iain Stirling, but not of Fletcher. Stirling is quoted as calling Fletcher "the funniest man I know after Daniel Kitson".  That's it.  An eight word quote by his partner is neither independent nor significant coverage.  It's trivial.


 * I like puppeteers, especially the followers of Jim Henson, who I saw perform back in 1968 before he became a big star. However, I am forced by the evidence to conclude that this young puppermaker and puppeteer has not yet received the coverage needed to be notable by Wikipedia's standards.  Right now, he's about as notable as Bill Clinton's high school band Three Blind Mice, which doesn't have a Wikipedia article. However, he may well gain more widespread attention as his career progresses, and if so, the article can be recreated at that time.  Cullen 328   Let's discuss it  02:28, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I have changed my decision above per Cullen's arguments. Despite some of these sources, there still isn't anywhere near enough coverage under WP:GNG, and certainly not WP:ARTIST. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 02:47, 14 November 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.