Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sebastian Doggart

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. Deletion is not cleanup, and the consensus is is that the individual is notable. (non-admin closure) ~~ OxonAlex - talk 14:27, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sebastian Doggart

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable actor and filmmaker that seem to be using this page as a promotional piece. jps (talk) 17:37, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 17:37, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 17:37, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is a poorly-written, badly-sourced puff-piece of a WP:BLP. It needs to be completely re-written to stay in Wikipedia but the subject does seem to be notable. I have no desire to re-write it but I disagree that it should be deleted. Shearonink (talk) 17:44, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm having a hard time identifying the sources which indicate this person is notable. Sometimes WP:TNT is appropriate. This may be such a case. jps (talk) 17:48, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:56, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:56, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:56, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak KeepDoes seem to be notable, but the article is way over long for such a minor celebrity.Slatersteven (talk) 18:03, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Strong KeepDoes seem to be notable, with 64 verified sources cited. CitizenKane7 (talk) 18:49, 27 December 2019 (UTC) Struck per WP:SOCK and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Oxford2008.[reply]

— CitizenKane7 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. jps (talk) 20:17, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You need to read wp:overcite, its quality not quantity that matters, and blogs are not RS.Slatersteven (talk) 20:32, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/True Bromance, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Courting Condi, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Faust: From Condi to Neo-Condi. jps (talk) 19:49, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, along with the three associated articles. Had promotion been an undue concern, then Nike Doggart (Sebastian's sister, a biologist in Africa, after whom a species is named) might have been noted. Nike Doggart is another article at AfD, nominated by jps, but not mentioned here or at the current AfDs for American Faust: From Condi to Neo-Condi, Courting Condi, or True Bromance, also by jps. Anarchangel (talk) 01:39, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOAP argument fails the two tests of the Self Promotion section: NPOV, and "Creating overly abundant links and references to autobiographical sources", which incidentally is the weakness of Slatersteven's retort as well. There are no deletion arguments that can not be refuted, here. We'll see what relisting does. Anarchangel (talk) 02:41, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The self-promotion has been established through the sockpuppet investigation, but in the interest of keeping things sanitary, I ask that you do your own research about this. There are indeed overly abundant links and references to autobiographical sources in this and the related articles (e.g. Facebook!). I'm having a hard time deciding whether you actually looked at this situation as it presents itself or you are just !voting from the hip. jps (talk) 18:24, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Having already looked at the sockpuppet investigations, I can safely say that in practice, Wikipedia's definition of "abuse of two accounts" might be better served by the wording, "use of two accounts". Any "establishment" of self-promotion was entirely absent from that discussion. I am grown tired of your repeated misrepresentations and abuse of arguments from ignorance. Anarchangel (talk) 01:51, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is your contention that promotion is not a concern because I did not mention Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nike Doggart here or at the articles about SD's films? I also nominated a number of other BLPs that were created by the sockfarm of people who worked on the films, but did not mention them here in order to keep discussions contained. I really do not follow what your argument is here. jps (talk) 15:28, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2nd and 3rd sentences are different arguments. Anarchangel (talk) 01:48, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could spell them out and explain how they conform to Wikipedia's WP:Deletion policy because I cannot understand what you are trying to say. jps (talk) 15:31, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I trust that the closer can comprehend my arguments. Containment is not established Deletion practice. Noting that similar articles have been nominated is. Anarchangel (talk) 02:28, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: In my opinion, he does pass notability standards, but the article needs to be worked on, with non-reliable sources (like links to Facebook) deleted. Dflaw4 (talk) 14:46, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:49, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I reviewed the page and discovered that a good number of the sources cited made the subject to pass WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV clearly. The subject is featured in this Telegraph.co.uk piece and other citations as given on the page

Also, the subject passes WP:NACADEMIC as the author of three books published, he has also written for major newspapers including the Guardian, Telegraph, Independent, Observer, and Huffington Post.

The subject also passes WP:BIO as further research reveals

He has received an Emmy nomination for the seminal show Project Runway,
He has directed and wrote three feature films, all of which won awards
He has also collaborated with the newly appointed director of the Cuban National Ballet, Viengsay Valdes;
He is also a director of an independent arts center in Havana Cuba

I also noticed that this page was created way back in 2007 and has stood for years. Wondering why the sudden nomination for deletion. It certainly has encyclopedic value having been updated severally by multiple notable editors in good standing since 2007 till date.10:46, 8 January 2020 (UTC)Catorce2016 (talk)

Keep. There has been an effort at including highly promotional articles on the individual's films, being used as a coatrack for attacks on a politician, but the filmaker is nonetheless notable, and the films can be mentioned here and discussed briefly in neutral terms. Removing all mention is excessive. We remove promotional content, we don't penalize people for whom promotional content is written when theyareactually notable and a NPOV article is possible. . DGG ( talk ) 06:08, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG. This guy really is into Condaleeza Rice. Missvain (talk) 02:12, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.