Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Fleming (2nd nomination)

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. - Mailer Diablo 19:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Fleming

To quote its talk page

"

Editors

List of editors who are likely John Fleming.

User:Thejohnfleming

The addresses starting with 172 are AOL addresses and the addresses starting 85 are Pipex ADSL.

All the other editors contributions are limited to style edits, adding links or ISBN numbers. AlistairMcMillan 20:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is this entry anything other than vanity publication?"— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bingo99 (talk • contribs)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - who cares about it? --Alex ^{(talk here)} 15:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, who cares about anything, really? I'm the John Fleming the article is about. The Malcolm Hardee autobiography which I ghost wrote sold (I understand from Fourth Estate the publishers) around 7,000 copies. The Janey Godley autobiography which I edited was, in August 2006, listed for two weeks in the Sunday Times paperback bestseller list as No 10 in the general (ie non-fiction) section, selling around 5,000 copies each week and, yes, that is information available on line at the Sunday Times website. Can anyone tell me what sources need to be cited in this article? If anyone can tell me how apparently random (some but not all) "Star Trek" episodes are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, perhaps I could understand the system better. What is the actual specific objection to this article on me (which I did not originate)? Is "who cares about it?" a carefully considered and balanced opinion? It's a bit wearisome. Can I just randomly object to some article too for no particular reason? I don't care about the Emperor Claudius. Can you erase that article, please? There seem to have been an awful lot of people adding things to this article and tinkering with it who did not object. So, come on, exactly what IS the objection? User:Thejohnfleming 08:42 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- It sounds like vanity to me. --Alex ^{(talk here)} 11:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like vandalism to me. The first time this article was marked for deletion, it was by someone near Glasgow. where Janey Godley - who is very controversial - comes from. (I edited her autobiography) This second time it appears to have been marked for deletion on 31st August by someone who comes from Edinburgh, where I have just been writing Edinburgh Fringe reviews of shows from 6th-27th August and where I was co-ordinating three shows by Janey Godley. It was marked for deletion with no discussion page until I queried this. Then an additional bit was bunged on about no sources being cited. Then two links were removed from the article - to the websites of the late Malcolm Hardee and the living Janey Godley - the reason being that they were irrelevent although the references to the two autobiographies were left on the article's page. How relevent can you get in an encyclopaedia? The links were to websites giving more background information on the subjects of the autobiographies - and both websites include extracts from the books. This sounds like straight snotty vandalism to me. Is this page just going to be marked for deletion every four months? User:Thejohnfleming 16.29 1 September 2006 (UTC)

There has been a note on this Wikipedia entry for over a week saying "Some information in this article or section has not been verified and may not be reliable." Can anybody tell me which information has not been verified and needs to be verified? Can anybody tell me exactly what information may not be reliable? It also says "cite sources". Can anybody tell me which sources should be cited and sources of what information? Or are these notes just being randomly attached to the page without any logic or actual practical point?

In the Wikipedia article "The Ontario general election of 1990" it is said that the election was held on September 6, I see no source cited for this. Presumably there are sources, but none are cited. It says Leonard Wood represented Cochrane North. I see no source cited for this. It says that, in Burlington South, a Don Pennell (FCP) received 1707 votes. I see no source cited for this. Why has no notice been put on that page saying that some of the political and statistical information may not be reliable and sources need to be cited? Why has the "John Fleming" page allegedly got unreliable information? Who says so? What unreliable information? I am the persan referred to. I can't see anything unreliable in the entry. Can anyone else? If so, what? If not, why was this note put there, who put it there and why does it continue to remain there? User:Thejohnfleming 07.27 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Not a single sentence in the article is backed up by a direct source citation. Having a "Books" section and an External links section isn't the same thing. Get some references that specifically back up the claims made in the article, and attack them with ref tags. If you don't know how, check out the code for the John Mark Karr article to see how it's done. wikipediatrix 22:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

: Relisting to seek clearer consensus. - RFerreira 20:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not quite notable enough. My Alt Account 20:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. I could be swayed if there were sources, verifiable and reliable, attesting to his notability. Without them, I can't take any of the article's information just on his say-so. wikipediatrix 22:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:VAIN, and WP:V unless his claim to have co-written these books can be established. Not many points for editorship, I'm afraid, seeing that he's only done 1 book which claims "bestseller status" (but has been independently reviewed) and 2 other very-mediocre-selling books. The book he claims to have co-written ranks 446 thousandsths per Amazon.co.uk Ohconfucius 03:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really care either way, but will no-one actually tell me specifically what is actually being queried here and what sources are supposed to be cited? No-one has actually been specific about anything. It's all very well to say "I can't take any of the article's information just on his say-so" - Which information? The spelling of the name "Fleming"? The TV credits? (Get copies of the programmes) I have a legally-binding contract with (the late) Malcolm Hardee specifying the percentages we share for my writing his autobiography. What am I supposed to do? Send it by post to someone? If I didn't write the Malcolm Hardee book, why else is my name printed in it as co-author and on the copyright page as co-copyright owner? What does "claims bestseller status" mean? If "Handstands in the Dark" is printed in the Sunday Times bestseller list as one of their bestsellers, is that an unverified claim? - Sunday Times August 13th 2006 www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2102-2304534_2,00.html + Sunday Times, August 20th 2006 - www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2102-2314665_2,00.html The book "I Stole Freddie Mercury's Birthday Cake" is, indeed (at the time of writing this) 445,738 on amazon.co.uk - and Evelyn Waugh's "Brideshead Revisited" is 815,071 on amazon.co.uk Presumably this means that the Wikipedia entry on "Brideshead Revisited" should be deleted as being not notable and an entry should be created for "I Stole Freddie Mercury's Birthday Cake" as it is verifiably more notable - citing the sales figures as being objective. Amazon's verification of sales figures show the out of print Malcolm Hardee autobiography as being almost twice as notable as far as current readership numbers is concerned as the in print Evelyn Waugh novel. Please please please will someone actually specify what is being queried. User:Thejohnfleming 10.08 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Alright, you want some quotable verification..... I can only guess of what..... In the Malcolm Hardee obituary in the Guardian newspaper, 4th February 2005 http://www.guardian.co.uk/obituaries/story/0,,1405432,00.html are the references "in the autobiography he wrote with John Fleming in 1996" and "In 2003, again with John Fleming, Hardee edited Sit-Down Comedy, an acclaimed collection of prose by comics such as John Hegley and Stewart Lee"..... In the Malcolm Hardee obituary in the principal showbiz paper The Stage, 10th February 2005 http://www.thestage.co.uk/people/peoplestory.php/6392 are the references "He wrote his autobiography I Stole Freddie Mercury’s Birthday Cake with John Fleming in 1996... In 2003 he published Sit-Down Comedy - Stand-Ups Swap the Stage for the Page, a collection of short stories co-edited with Fleming from comics such as Dominic Holland, Arthur Smith and Stewart Lee"..... In the news item on Malcolm Hardee's death on BBC News Online, 2nd February 2005 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4230789.stm there is a reference to "the book he wrote with John Fleming, Sit-Down Comedy"..... In fact, I wrote the "Freddie Mercury" book myself using taped interviews with Malcolm, all of which I have retained. If someone would like to sit through the 20 or 30 ninety-minute tapes tapes, they are more than welcome to. Now will someone please tell me what needs to be verified with what sort of citations and what is actually being queried? Please? I can only prove I exist with my birth certificate. To whom should I send this? User:Thejohnfleming 10.45 9 September 2006 (UTC)

In the Acknowledgements (page vii) of Janey Godley's autobiography "Handstands in the Dark" (available for a bestseller price of £3.73 in Tescos and not available to read online) Janey acknowledges: "John Fleming, who saw me perform comedy , thought I would make a writer, then introduced me to Ebury and constantly encouraged me to write this book - he made me explore the language and enjoy the process". I also have a written contract with Ebury Press/Random House specifying that I edit the book. It is not available for you to see online. To whom would you like me to send this legal contract for verification? User:Thejohnfleming 11.14 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Respectfully, Mr. Fleming, that is not really how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia is designed to be an online encyclopedia, and thus serve as a tertiary reference source. A legal contract or other such document would constitute a primary information source. If, say, a New York Times reporter reviewed the document and referenced its contents in a printed story, then that Times story would constitute a secondary information source. Editors of Wikipedia could then use that secondary published source to update the article here. In fact, we are specifically prohibited from posting facts we have personally verified from the primary source by the policy WP:No original research.

As far as what secondary sources are appropriate to verify the specific facts stated in an article, they must be “credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.” Please see WP:Verifiability and WP:Reliable sources for additional information and rationale.

Such requirements are the basis for notability standards in the first place. If the subject of an article is insufficiently notable, there is a dearth of secondary sources. Without sufficient secondary sources, it becomes difficult to ensure the article meets the criteria of official Wikipedia policies such as WP:Verifiability, WP:No original research, and WP:Neutral point of view.

I realize that all of these rules and guidelines can be frustrating and confusing to someone who is just trying to verify facts about themselves. And I’m sure it is equally frustrating that other articles are out there that do not yet meet these standards, but have not yet been deleted or corrected (we get to them as we can). But if your bio article ends up being deleted, please do not take it personally. The volunteer editors here are simply trying to interpret and apply Wikipedia policies as best they can. Thank you for your time. Yours, Satori Son 13:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is it not a bit odd that Wikipedia is prohibited from verifying facts from primary sources but can only verify facts from the hearsay of respectable secondary sources? Can I refer you to the photograph on http://www.eagleton.rutgers.edu/e-gov/e-politicalarchive-1948election.htm showing clearly that Truman lost the 1948 Presidential Election to Dewey? That is an example of a fact verified by a reliable source. I have actually written for a US desk encyclopaedia and I understand it is common practice for encyclopaedias to include at least one false entry to see if any other encyclopaedia is stealing their information. Because secondary sources are inherently unreliable. But what IS very frustrating is that even you (who seem a very helful and friendly chap) still do not say specifically what facts are being queried and may be unreliable in the Wikipedia entry on "John Fleming". If it is the use of the word "bestseller", then the Sunday Times confirms that (see above). If it is my authorship of the two earlier books, then the Guardian confirms that. If it is what I did on the latest book, then it is printed in the book itself by Random House Group, the largest publisher in the world. If it is, for example, the fact that I staged a 5-hour live show in London in 2006, then I refer you to the 4-star review it was given in The Times http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,14936-2027809,00.html which confirms the show, the venue and even the duration of the show. There is also a review on the main British comedy industry website http://www.chortle.co.uk/standup/sufeatures/malcolm.php I am the contact for the 2007 show http://www.malcolmhardee.co.uk/show2007details which aims to spend anything from around £7,000-£15,000 sponsoring new acts - Admittedly the whole sprawling www.malcolmhardee.co.uk website might have been faked by me since February 2005 simply so that I can claim this in September 2006, but it's a tad unlikely. Chortle (the main British comedy industry website which supplies showbiz news to the BBC on a contract basis - ie the BBC use them as a primary source then repeat what they say as fact) also has an article written by me in 2003 explaining exactly what I did on the "Sit-Down Comedy" book http://www.chortle.co.uk/books/bkfeatures/fleming.html and, in a 2003 news item, reported my involvement in the "Handstands in the Dark" book http://www.chortle.co.uk/news/nov03/godley.html It is a tad difficult to verify facts if one is not told which facts you are supposed to verify. It seems to me that the person who marked this entry for deletion has never said why it was put up for deletion, did not start an article for deletion (that seems to have been done later when I complained there was no discussion anywhere) and he or she has not contributed to this discussion. If the person who marked the article for deletion has no specific reason why it should be deleted and can't be bothered to contribute, isn't that a bit odd? So I can only repeat yet again what EXACTLY and SPECIFICALLY is being queried as unverified on the "John Fleming" entry and what EXACTLY and SPECIFICALLY is required to verify it? You have, above, facts 'verified' as secondary sources by the Guardian (a major UK newspaper), The Stage (the main showbiz trade paper), the BBC (a large broadcaster), The Times (a major world newspaper). User:Thejohnfleming 18.03 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Strong Delete - Self-created vanity/advertisement article. Wooty 22:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as vanity. It's very difficult for someone to be objective about themselves, we know. That's why we frown on autobiographical entries. --Dhartung | Talk 00:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete User:Thejohnfleming needs to read WP:AUTO (which I am very disappointed that no one has linked to before). Danny Lilithborne 00:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record, I actually didn't create the entry myself. I am a tad disappointed that still no-one has said which "information... may not be reliable" I don't care about being deleted, but why on earth put notices on articles that unspecified information in an article may not be reliable in unspecified ways? I have repeatedly asked and never been told what information is said to be unreliable. I presume (*Delete per WP:VAIN, and WP:V unless his claim to have co-written these books can be established) means The Times, Guardian, Stage and BBC are unreliable? User:Thejohnfleming 06.55 10 September 2006 (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.