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.
WP:INTERVIEW is not a policy or guideline page, and the arguments appealing to that are relatively weak when compared to the notability guideline itself, which requires secondary sourcing.
TonyBallioni (
talk) 00:00, 11 April 2018 (UTC)reply
Non-notable individual, no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and current sources are either
interviews or passing mentions. Fails
WP:BIO and
general notability guideline. PROD contested, so raising for wider discussion.
GSS (
talk|
c|
em) 13:50, 18 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment, please note that
WP:INTERVIEW gives a nuanced consideration on the notability of interviews - e.g. An independent interviewer represents the "world at large" giving attention to the subject, and as such, interviews as a whole contribute to the basic concept of notability. It would be useful if you can show that the interviewers or the publications are not independent as there is no proscription on the use of interviews for notability. There are also sources in Italian - e.g.
[1],
[2],
[3].
Hzh (
talk) 15:19, 18 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Interviews are generally reliable for the fact that the interviewee said something, but not necessarily for the accuracy of what was said. The publications are merely repeating their comments, typically with minimal editing. No matter how highly respected a publication is, it does not present interviewee responses as having been checked for accuracy. In this sense, interviews should be treated like self-published material. My understanding is that interviews are not generally considered useful for notability, as they are not independent of the subject and I can't find any source that provide indepth coverage about the subject. I can't read Italian so it's hard for me to comment on the reliability and the depth of covrage provided above but with the help of Google translate I can guess that it appears to be a case of
WP:BLP1E "Meet the Designer Behind John Travolta's Dapper Don Wardrobe in 'Gotti'". Thank you –
GSS (
talk|
c|
em) 16:02, 18 March 2018 (UTC)reply
The quote you cited refers to accuracy of stated "fact", not about notability. I think you'd find that most of facts in the article can be found in the words written by the interviewers themselves (see for example the article by Hollywood Reporter) rather than the words said by the interviewee, therefore your point is not relevant here (I see only one fact that needed independent verification). In any case they can also be substantiated from other sources - check the Italian sources with substantial parts not based on interviews. Those Italian sources should be sufficient, it always helps to check sources other than English as notability is not determined by the language of the sources. I think you have misinterpreted
WP:BLP1E, John Travolta is a person not an event.
Hzh (
talk) 16:42, 18 March 2018 (UTC)reply
As I said above I can't read Italian so it's not possible for me to comment on those sources and no I'm not misinterpreting
WP:BLP1E, The reason for BLP1E is that I can't see any coverage about the subject except designing a suit for John Travolta which he wore at the Critics’ Choice Awards.
GSS (
talk|
c|
em) 16:58, 18 March 2018 (UTC)reply
The sources refer to him as the designer for John Travolta over a few years, not just one event. They also refer his work on the film Gotti, therefore
WP:BLP1E does not apply. Here I'm not arguing for or against the deletion, just stating the problems with the rationale for the deletion. It's marginal as far as I can see - technically he qualifies under coverage in multiple independent sources when the Italian sources are taken into account, but something marginal should be discussed first before it is kept or deleted.
Hzh (
talk) 17:09, 18 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
SpartazHumbug! 05:25, 26 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep -- Nom misunderstands
WP:INTERVIEW, per which this guy is clearly notable. The sources found by
Hzh in Italian are also sufficient unto themselves. There are sources in other languages too,
such as Greek. This seems like a clear-cut pass of
WP:GNG.
192.160.216.52 (
talk) 14:36, 26 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete:
WP:TOOSOON. The fact that the subject "dressed Travolta for the 2016 Critics' Choice Awards" is hardly a claim of significance, and there's nothing better. The achievments are not significant and I don't see a reason to keep this article at this time.
K.e.coffman (
talk) 02:07, 28 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:32, 2 April 2018 (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.