Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Seaward


 * 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. References added since nomination show some notability. Dweller (talk) 11:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

William Seaward

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Abysmally fails WP:ENTERTAINER. Much of it, in fact, reads like WP:HOAX. Qworty (talk) 05:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Funny entry, but NN act. Associated redirects should be deleted as well, and a few associated edits reverted Thetrick (talk) 06:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete and bounce out of the castle. A couple links are legit -- the Guardian article mentions Seaward by name -- but not notable enough outside of his backyard to be notable. Spell4yr (talk) 06:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No delete Will add some more references (there are many) for verifiability and to prove notability. Please note this is my first article. What does "NN act" mean? Sprintakid (talk) 11:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment NN is wikipedia shorthand for 'Not-notable' see Notability - I'm neutral on this for now. Article certainly isn't a Hoax - ref's to Guardian articles check out and he seems to have got other bits and pieces of news coverage but I'm not sure if its enough to warrant an article -Hunting dog (talk) 11:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment "Abysmally fails WP:ENTERTAINER" - I disagree (certainly with the word 'abysmally' - isn't that a little too emotive?) as a person should have made contributions (to the arts in this case) that are "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded." His contribution is unique, interesting and definitely unusual. I agree he fails on the other two criteria on WP:ENTERTAINER, but under the same heading it says "A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards." i.e. not necessarily all.(Sprintakid talk) 13:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Just delete it! Masterpiece2000   ( talk ) 14:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I added a few references, but I'm still neutral about the article as things stand. William Seaward has been quoted in some reliable sources, including the ABC in Australia and in The Guardian, as well as being interviewed in The Scotsman. He's also had TV and radio appearances. So he isn't without note. It also makes me very happy to know that, somewhere in the world, Shakespearean plays have been performed in bouncy castles. I'm neutral still because of two concerns - one is that it seems like his career may have just started, and that he really hasn't done a lot yet (two productions at the fringe, and a third on the way); and the other is that I'd probably be happier saying that The Strolling Theatricals company is more notable than the director/founder. Once the unsourced content is discounted, we have a solid (short) piece about the company and some lines about William Seaward, so I'm thinking it might make more sense to have a Strolling Theatricals article and redirect to that. Anyway, I'll hold of on a !vote for a bit, in case anyone has any better thoughts. - Bilby (talk) 14:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't delete From a historian's point of view, I see no reason to delete this article. Like seemingly worthless internet blogs, the more pieces of information we have on people, their lives and their thoughts, the more we're contributing to an archive for the future. Unfortunately, only big names get into the books, but because cultural contributors like William are just below the surface of popular recognition (as of yet), databases like Wikipedia must be relied on to keep a record of them. We cannot wait for the possibility that he might become a celebrity. Anthony Arundel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.32.126.11 (talk) 15:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - He certainly gets press from many reliable secondary sources. While all of them aren't "in depth" (some are arguably so like the first Guardian one), the combination of the sheer number of them seems to warrant inclusion. --Oakshade (talk) 23:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - I've decided to go with keep. The subject has been interviewed in a major newspaper, and both he and his work have been discussed in several other significant reliable sources, including international ones - many of whom directly quoted him in relation to his work. I think the article needs to be trimmed back to cover only verifiable information, and I'd still make a case for a merger with a new Strolling Theatricals article, but that aside he seems to meet (just) the notability requirements. - Bilby (talk) 07:11, 16 June 2008 (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.