Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nick Philip

Nick Philip

[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)

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The article's talk page had someone in 2007 argue for notability but the points appear weak and/or outdated.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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Comment See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anarchic Adjustment. Uhai (talk) 05:14, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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- Also not sure what outdated refers to.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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]