Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nick Philip

Nick Philip

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

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Nick Philip (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST with no significant, independent coverage available. The books cited in the article appear to be trivial mentions, with the remaining few available sources being interviews. The NY Times source is paywalled but seems to be a trivial mention as well.

The unsourced claim regarding being a founding contributor of Wired magazine might suggest notability, but there doesn't seem to be any substantiation for this except this, which is of questionable reliability and is an interview anyway. The Wired (magazine) article does not currently mention him by name at all and I've been unsuccessful in finding anything about him on Wired's website itself.

The article's talk page had someone in 2007 argue for notability but the points appear weak and/or outdated. Regardless, there's a dearth of reliable sources available for many of the claims. Uhai (talk) 05:13, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, Fashion, United Kingdom, England, United States of America, and California. Uhai (talk) 05:13, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
• Comment See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anarchic Adjustment. Uhai (talk) 05:14, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

  seems like vandalism to delete this page and the Anarchic Adjustment one, if you feel some of the info is false/fake you could just edit it out, but deleting these pages removes the fact Nick exists and the company he started, even if his name was a pseudo, it is still perfectly valid to be here on Wikipedia, and the company does/did exist, the proof is all the clothing they made Neoterics (talk) 00:25, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

  @Neoterics That is not at all what vandalism is; please see Wikipedia:Vandalism. The prime concern of this AfD is Wikipedia:Notability, for which Wikipedia's standards are strict, not that there may be unsourced information or misinformation in the article. This discussion is currently trending in the direction of no consensus, meaning the article would be retained. Uhai (talk) 19:40, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

• Keep.
  • The books cited in the article appear to be trivial mentions - I disagree, WP:SIGCOV coverage does not need to be lengthy. Being characterized as a leading figure a particular genre or subculture by an authority like Simon Reynolds is not a "trivial mention".
  • I've been unsuccessful in finding anything about him on Wired's website itself. - I had no trouble finding several, and just added two of them as additional citations to the article. I changed "a founding contributor" to "an early contributor" because the source I happened upon is dated 1994 instead of 1993 (Wired's founding year), one would probably need to dig up a separate source about the magazine's early history to investigate this further.
  • Also not sure what outdated refers to. There is no requirement for sources to be recent to count as evidence for notability.
  • I also just added another SIGCOV citation (by David Pescovitz, focusing entirely on the article's subject) from 2016, additional evidence of WP:SUSTAINED coverage.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 03:12, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

By outdated I'm referring to what the notability criteria may have been in 2007 on Wikipedia. Maybe having an IMDb page or a product for sale on Amazon could have, alongside other points, justified retention of an article then, however they mean nothing today. I wasn't around this area back then so I wouldn't know. I was not arguing contrary to WP:NOTTEMPORARY.

Thanks for finding some additional sources including for Wired, though I'm still unconvinced WP:GNG or WP:ARTIST are met here especially since the reality of his work there may not be as grand as the "founding contributor" claim might have insinuated. And I disagree regarding WP:SIGCOV: it specifically mentions in detail so I would argue coverage should be at least somewhat lengthy. The cited portion of the Reynolds book mentions him once in the thesis statement for the section (pp. 149-150) and has a single paragraph about him, with much of the content of said paragraph being quotations from him (pp. 152-153). Aside from that, pp. 61, 155, and 307 contain additional quotations, each limited to one paragraph each. I don't see how his few mentions in this book are any more than trivial. If he's "characterized as a leading figure" of a genre or subculture, especially given the subject of this book being said genre/subculture, shouldn't there be more? Shouldn't there be a chapter or at least a section of a chapter dedicated to him? Uhai (talk) 05:42, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:08, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

I have augmented the article further using yet another SIGCOV RS citation, to i-D magazine. I saw that in the other AfD you had mentioned that piece, arguing that it's an interview [...] so isn't independent. But that doesn't apply the introduction of the piece, which was evidently written by the i-D journalist. (And the idea that a journalist or their publication somehow become closely affiliated with the subject of their coverage in the sense of WP:INDEPENDENT just by talking to that subject would be absurd; in fact, at least in the US, not doing so is considered a failure of journalistic quality standards, at least for some types of coverage.)

Thanks for the clarification regarding outdated and your various other thoughtful responses. But I don't follow those arguments for lengthiness requirements - the part of WP:SIGCOV you are referring to continues [...] so that no original research is needed to extract the content, making clear that the detail is a means to an end, an end which is served perfectly well in this specific case. As for If he's "characterized as a leading figure" of a genre or subculture, especially given the subject of this book being said genre/subculture, shouldn't there be more? - I'm sorry, but that argument is entirely off the mark. Simon Reynolds' book is not about a single "genre/subculture" but catalogs an enormous number of them as part of one broad paradigm (or several) spanning multiple decades across multiple countries, i.e. what the author calls "dance culture". The index alone is 21 pages long (I'm looking at the 2012 US edition, rather than the 1999 one currently cited in the article), consisting almost entirely of notable people, bands, venues etc. That's admittedly my subjective impression, but I actually just confirmed it empirically by going through the letter "Z", where all but one of the entries have a Wikipedia article, with the remaining one (Zone Records) being a redirect. And all of these have fewer mentions in the book than Nick Philip. In other words, your counterfactual seems highly implausible. A well-known expert's comprehensive overview, written years or decades after the fact, can't be examined in the same way for the purposes of WP:GNG as a contemporary news or magazine article, or a specialist book entirely devoted to a single obscure niche topic.

To clarify just in case and for the record: I didn't create this article and have had some issues with some wordings and claims in previous revisions. But at this point I think WP:GNG is clearly satisfied.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 06:40, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the i-D article: you are correct that I said that and are correct that WP:IS can still apply to the introduction of an interview. However, it is just a brief introduction and context-setter that any interview would have and doesn't really provide the substance I would look for to make a case for WP:GNG. Looking over the article again, I am now a little concerned if it is some sort of paid article because of the number of images at the bottom of the article of the upcoming (at the time of publishing) products along with a link to the store and release date and time for the products. I'm not sure if i-D does paid articles but per WP:VICE it does appear there is not currently community consensus on whether Vice Media publications are reliable. I haven't yet dug into the discussions to see why those who don't think it's reliable think so, whether it's for promotional or other concerns. Of course, there being no consensus doesn't mean Vice Media is not reliable, but I am concerned about i-D and this article in particular. If you or someone else more knowledgeable than I could weigh in, it would be appreciated. If the article is just a "let us interview you for clicks and we'll plug your stuff" type of symbiotic relationship, does this introduce WP:RS concerns—even if no money exchanged hands?

As far as the Reynolds book goes, per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS I would not make the case that subjects with fewer mentions in the book than Nick Philip having articles justifies the retention of this one. These subjects may also not be notable or may have more significant coverage elsewhere than what Phillip has. The bigger issue with the book is that Phillip's <6 mentions across it mostly consist of quotations from the man himself.

Thanks for the clarification regarding your involvement and previous concerns with the article. While I mentioned in the other AfD that there appears to have been some COI editing on both articles over the years, the reasoning for the nominations comes purely from concerns of notability.

This is an interesting discussion so hopefully we can get some participation from other editors as well to arrive at some consensus. Uhai (talk) 12:07, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

• Merge into Cyberdelic as he does seem to be a part of that movement, but does not merit a stand-alone article. So much of the article is a long-winded description of his day job. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:48, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I see no consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:37, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

@Uhai: Generally speaking i-D is a well-reputed fashion magazine, founded in 1980 by a former art director of the British Vogue. (I actually started the German Wikipedia article about it way back in 2005, which the English one was based on ;) WP:VICE isn't really very pertinent here, as none of the community discussions that it summarizes covered or even mentioned i-D specifically (I just checked), and most of them appear to have been about the RS status of Vice (magazine), Vice News and other specific publications rather than Vice Media in general (although I haven't checked in detail).

"let us interview you for clicks" - to repeat myself: the idea that a journalist or their publication somehow become closely affiliated with the subject of their coverage (in the sense of WP:INDEPENDENT) just by talking to that subject would be absurd (in fact, at least in the US, not doing so is considered a failure of journalistic quality standards, at least for some types of coverage). Likewise, insinuating that a news publication can't be regarded as reliable because it publishes articles designed to attract readership (clicks) is far removed from both journalistic practice and Wikipedia policy. As for the particular worry that this article could be a covert promotion (I am now a little concerned if it is some sort of paid article): I'm not too familiar with UK advertising regulations for print and online news media, but I kind assume that they would require disclosure in that situation. (Some other i-D articles do disclose the use of affiliate links, which isn't really a RS concern - the New York Times makes quite a bit of money with these too.) And the mere fact that the article mentions the release date and time for the products (and depicts some of them) is no evidence of that. It is standard practice in reputable fashion media to cover new products, as it is indeed in cultural journalism in general - book reviews in RS publications will usually include specific purchasing information for the book including its price, movie reviews in quality newspapers routinely state "In theaters Dec 1" etc., respected art magazines will cover current exhibitions together with information specifically designed to facilitate visiting that exhibition (museum location, dates etc). And so on - a lot political news coverage is driven by politicians' press releases and announcements, many investigative journalism stories are triggered by what self-interested sources decide to make available to journalists, etc. Now, if all these general facts are new to you, sure, you can worry about symbiotic relationships, earned media, or otherwise engage in generic media criticism. But all this has little to do with whether the publication in question has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy in the sense of WP:RS.

Re OTHERSTUFFEXISTS: That wasn't my argument above when comparing the level of coverage of Nick Philip in Reynolds' book to that of other (undisputably notable) subjects - rather it was a reductio ad absurdum of your shouldn't there be more? argument against notability.

@WomenArtistUpdates: Merge into Cyberdelic as he does seem to be a part of that movement - are there reliable sources supporting that claim? I doubt that it is true; at least the term appears to have never appeared in the article's 17 year revision history. a long-winded description of his day job - what kind of argument is that? Shouldn't an article about an artist or designer actually focus on their work in the profession they are known for? How is this different from articles like say Esther Heins?

Regards, HaeB (talk) 04:54, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

HaeB, I have struck the merge suggestion. The source I saw is https://jods.mitpress.mit.edu/user/nick-philip/authored but as you point out, not enough to classify him as part of the movement. The difference between Esther Heins and Nick Philip is that she is dead and her work is in the collection of the Boston Museum of Fine Arts. Philip is alive and not verifiably in any notable collections. Best, --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:35, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. The difference between Esther Heins and Nick Philip is that she is dead and her work is in the collection of the Boston Museum of Fine Arts - death doesn't contribute to notability, but I understand that with the latter part you are referring to WP:ARTIST 4.d). However, that's not the only possible notability criterion here, hence all the conversation above especially about WP:GNG. But come to think of it, your source (the MIT Journal of Design and Science page) says that his design work is included in the permanent collection of SFMOMA, so that would actually count towards WP:ARTIST 4.d) too. Regards, HaeB (talk) 05:08, 3 December 2023 (UTC)