Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hugh Allison

: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. -- Cirt (talk) 21:14, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

=[[Hugh Allison]]=

:{{la|Hugh Allison}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|Hugh Allison}})

This has just been speedied, which was too hasty, then restored. Nevertheless the subject of the article does lack notability. Many of the claimed credits are for work which was not paid at all, or not at professional rates. I suggest deletion. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 21:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

  • This has been speedy deleted four times since 2007, and the creator has not managed to fix it in that time. I speedied it recently after it appeared on the spam list, and restored it because the creator asked me to, but I can't find secondary sources. SlimVirgin User_talk:SlimVirgincontribs 22:13, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
  • SamuelTheGhost thanks for keeping me up to speed. SlimVirgin, thanks for restoring it. I am going to cut the page down shortly (so it reads less like a CV as per your suggestion). I agree the subject lacks any real notability outside the London Fringe and Internet Radio scene, but I believe he is of interest to some people, maybe those auditioning for him.--TimothyJacobson (talk) 22:48, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

:I should also thank SchuminWeb for deleting the original statement of spam, and should declare that I have messaged this user to ask for help in improving the article. NB, I have started work on changing this article so it is more wiki-worthy. It is breaking my heart to cut down a page I probably contributed more to than anyone else, but I do see everyone's point. I had felt that by putting links to where I found the info from would make the article more wiki-worthy, but I would agree that most of the info comes from www.hughallison.com (so this is what I creditted) so I can now see it would have been best if I had not put the info on at all. Re SamuelTheGhost's comment above, which I have just re-read, although I have long suspected that most of Allison's work is that for which he has not been paid professional rates, if there is a site or similar which states this, I would appreciate knowing it, in case that provides more useful info/citations which I could use when trying to rebuild the page--TimothyJacobson (talk) 23:23, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

::As per above, I am hoping to remove all credits which are sourced from www.hughallison.com - as a geuine question, should I also remove credits from doollee.com and or the Young Vic Genesis Page which I have also cited many times?--TimothyJacobson (talk) 23:33, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

:::I do apologise for adding so many comments to this page, but I want to keep everything I am doing above board, and also making it clear what I am doing and asking questions etc so as to make sure the page is not redeleted. I am aware that I still need to dramatically chop down and rewrite the "Directing" section and the "Writing" section. I am tired/hungry now, so leave it for a bit, but will strive to amend them within the next 48 hours. Do please message me to let me know if there is anything else that should be changed. Specifically, the "Gospel" section - is this ok, should it be shortened, should it go to a separate article page, or should I cut it completely? All thoughts & advice welcome--TimothyJacobson (talk) 23:47, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

::::Hi Tim, we're allowed in biographies of living persons to use the subject's own self-published website as a source, but only within reason. It can't reach the point where the Wikipedia article has effectively become an extension of—or even substitute for—the personal website, so that's a matter of editorial judgment, erring on the side of caution. Other than the subject's, we're not allowed to use any self-published sources. See WP:BLPSPS. The most important thing here is to find secondary sources who have written about him, to establish whether he's notable enough for a WP biography. SlimVirgin User_talk:SlimVirgincontribs 00:02, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Slim. Thanks for that. To be safe though, I will stick to not using quotes from the presumably self-published hughallison.com and will only use a minimal amount from the (presumably also self-published) wix.com. To my understanding, re my above question, I will also remove the "Young Vic" references, as I believe that anything about the Genesis Project can be edited by the directors, in the same way that actors can edit their Spotlight/imdb pages. Unless requested otherwise, I will keep the doollee.com citations, as (having looked at the site in more detail) it seems that anyone thereon still needs to submit their work to be vetted. // Also, re the comment on your talk page, I can't find any references anywhere to the Observer/As You Like It quote (other than on Allison's website and on other wiki's so I will remove it).--TimothyJacobson (talk) 01:11, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

:I have done quite a bit more work, including cutting the no of words dramatically. I think my original thought was that the piece would have been less likely to be deleted if the page was longer, as it would imply Allison had done more and was thus wiki-worthy. I am now going down the less-is-more route. [also, I didn't want to risk the page being labelled a stub]// I would appreciate people having a look at the page as it stands, and letting me know their thoughts. Specifically, (1) Is there anything else that should be changed/removed, (2) does the page still rely on any sources from websites which are self-published or not allowed by Wiki for any other reason, (3) does it still look like an extension of Allison's website and (4) now that the lists are smaller, do the directing section and the writing section still need to be amended into more of a paragraph or encyclopedic style? I will be online again within 48 hours to make any suggested amendments.--TimothyJacobson (talk) 02:31, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

::It's still just a list, not an article, and it needs secondary sources. That's the thing to focus on. If there are no secondary sources (e.g. newspaper articles about him, or that mention him in more than passing), it should be deleted. SlimVirgin User_talk:SlimVirgincontribs 03:51, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

:::I have just done more trimming and it is (in my opinion at least) no longer a list; just a couple of basic paragraphs. I will work on the secondary sources issue within 48 hours.--TimothyJacobson (talk) 12:05, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I have just gone back to the article. I can't find anything online where Allison gets more than a fleeting mention or a credit, so I believe that (much as it would break my heart based on the no of hours I have put in over the years working on the article) it is perhaps sensible that the piece is deleted. I also looked through several of the other Actors/Filmmakers for deletion, and I think I understand even more why the Hugh Allison one should go.--TimothyJacobson (talk) 00:19, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

:Thanks, Tim, and thanks too for trying to find sources. SlimVirgin User_talk:SlimVirgincontribs 00:23, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

::No probs--TimothyJacobson (talk) 00:27, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Delete - I can find no significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Kudos to TimothyJacobson for a valiant rewrite, but at this point, I don't see that the subject meets wikipedia's inclusion criteria.-- Whpq (talk) 15:10, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:39, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Delete The first source [http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/theatre/show-23376849-gospel.do] is actually a reader's comment (note the "report abuse" link on the review text.) The second leads to a site with more detail about him,[http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=1G1GGLQ_ENJP338&q=site:www.yorkshakespeareproject.org+hugh.allison&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=] but with no source meeting WP:RS for WP:N. The third is just an event listing, crediting him with co-direction.[http://www.thestage.co.uk/listings/production.php/47717/ferry-lights-tomorrow-we-build-our-jerusalem]. The fourth [http://www.doollee.com/PlaywrightsA/allison-hugh.html] credits him with a list of plays, and there are some links to theater schedules, but it's not clear anybody's vetting the information posted. The fifth is a duplicate of fourth link. The sixth [http://www.hertfordshire.com/pages/entries/show-entry.asp?id=9651] doesn't mention him at all. A google book search turns up only one source [http://books.google.com/books?id=U5krAQAAIAAJ&q=hugh.allison+playwright+-%22smith,+hugh+allison%22+-%22hugh+allison+smith%22&dq=hugh.allison+playwright+-%22smith,+hugh+allison%22+-%22hugh+allison+smith%22&hl=en&ei=evZDTZ6EMYG8vwPBk4jyAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCYQ6AEwAA] that says anything at all about him -- and it's a bit dismissive (dings him for a "turgid" production.) So far, we don't have multiple independent third-party sources. At this point, the likelihood of finding any seems remote. Yakushima (talk) 11:16, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete - Footnotes point to superficial listings of individual's name and position. Fails to meet muster for non-trivial third party coverage, in my opinion. Carrite (talk) 03:15, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete; I don't think anything can be done to save the page--TimothyJacobson (talk) 10:31, 30 January 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.