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 keep. MBisanztalk 09:06, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This BLP on a minor blogger/author does not have any independent sources that discuss this person. Fails WP:BIOBali ultimate (talk) 12:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What's unacceptable is attacking the motives of other editors (and without a shred of evidence to back it up). I'd never heard of Peter Jukes until today. My reasons for the nomination are clear in my nomination (fails BIO). Please, discuss content and not other editors unless you have a good reason to do so (and evidence to back it up). You're growing increasingly uncivil and this will not prove helpful to you, me or wikipedia.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, no, sir; please allow me to correct myself. I didn't look deeply enough to see you had created this AfD; I am certain your reasoning is on the level. Perhaps you could concede, however, that it would be possible for this nomination to appear to be motivated to that argument, especially considering there's two admins who edited this article when the last AfD on The Motley Moose came up, and both thought it was reasonably notable for inclusion. Maybe it would have been more prudent to wait until that had played itself out. Though I would also suggest a subjective opinion on whether or not you had heard of this article's subject is hardly an acceptable reason for submitting this article for AfD. Again, a quick Google search pointed the results I showed above; perhaps "Cleanup" would have been more appropriate. Thank you. Ks64q2 (talk) 17:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting Ks64q2: "a subjective opinion on whether or not you had heard of this article's subject is hardly an acceptable reason for submitting this article for AfD." Of course it isn't. I wrote "I'd never heard of Peter Jukes until today" in response to your allegation that my nomination "appears to be motivated by the user's actions in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Motley Moose, which is unacceptable if true." I don't know Jukes and have no opinion on him or his work, or any relationship that would "motivate" me to nominate this BLP for any other reason than this: I believe it falls short of wikipedia's standards for biographies of living persons, notability and verifiability largely because there are insufficient reliable sources that discuss the subject of the article. Now, I suggest you drop the attacks on my or anyone elses motives. Keep it on the content and keep your suppositions about what's in other people's heads to yourself.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although John Berger's and the New Yorker's critical coverage of Jukes' work is as yet uncited, I'm going to assume good faith on these. What's more, his extensive writing work in stage, screen and prose -- including the Laurence Olivier Awards winning Matador -- more than satisfies WP:CREATIVE. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Going through the sources, I see only self-published material by Jukes. To pass inclusion criteria, according to WP:NOTE, subjects need to "receive significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."--Sloane (talk) 17:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)Keep: I think he just crosses the threshold for inclusion, his work for tv seems to be relatively extensive (although there's very little coverage that exists of it) and his book probably has gotten enough reviews (we've only found a couple, but I suspect there's more on paper).--Sloane (talk) 00:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ReplyWP:BIO states that individuals can be notable on the basis on additional criteria, even in cases where basic notability criteria is missing. Jukes' is a perfect example of this: he has won awards for his theatrical work and has extensive television writing credits. The New Yorker and John Berger reviews of his non-fiction work need to be found, to be sure, but it would be a mistake to delete an article on such an apparently prominent writer. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The winner of the award turns out to be not the play or Jukes himself, but the choreographer of the play. So this isn't an argument for inclusion.--Sloane (talk) 18:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have you removed all his TV writing credits? Why? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced. They're at the talk page.--Sloane (talk) 19:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
... and rather easily sourced, which I've done for 2 of the main BBC creds. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Sloane/nom. Eusebeus (talk) 19:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
cmt everyone with a few writing credits on tv, but no awards or non-trivial independent coverage about him is notable? That's not how i see it.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mate, that's not "a few writing credits on TV". That's three major primetime TV writing credits in flagship programmes so far this year.—S MarshallTalk/Cont 20:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think some are older credits. I just found a ref to a 2008 BBC radio play her wrote. I'm adding it. I believe part of the problem has been the zeal with which other editors have deleted prominent Tv and radio writing credits, instead of making the slightest attempt to reference them. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mate, "so far this year?" I'm not sure it will impact your opinion, but the article now has one writing credit for one episode from 2006 [1], one writing credit for one episode in 2001 [2] and one writing credit for one episode in 2004 [3]. There is no discussion about the quality, or impact etc... of these three episodes, just notations at the beeb that he wrote them.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Writing a couple of episodes for television series doesn't seem enough for inclusion. So far, all we have is the one book review from the Journal Of Sociology. And one source really isn't enough.--Sloane (talk) 20:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
he's written multiple episodes and radio projects for the BBC, some of which I've just added. On the basis of his multiple scripts for top BBC series, I believe he easily meets the WP:CREATIVE criteria for having "created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews."Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, Bali ultimate is correct: I mis-read that. Nevertheless, I find multiple citations as a writer for the BBC rather convincing; and these are quality prime-time programmes. It's not like he wrote a couple of episodes of soaps.
Another point I should make is that notability is a guideline. It's not a debate-winning trump card, particularly when there are policy-based reasons not to delete well-cited material from Wikipedia—as has already happened here, in blatant contravention of policy, in what I can only characterise as an overenthusiastic move on someone's part. Deleting the article would be an even more flagrant abuse.—S MarshallTalk/Cont 20:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Writing a couple episodes is not the same as "creating" or "co-creating" a series. We are also still lacking in any reliable sources about his involvement in these series. All we have are credits at the BBC website.--Sloane (talk) 20:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying the BBC isn't a reliable source to establish who writes for the BBC?—S MarshallTalk/Cont 20:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I 'm saying that it isn't enough to warrant inclusion. There's no reliable source attesting that this person had a major impact on the series.--Sloane (talk) 20:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see. I get that, and I'd tend to agree. That warrants further investigation.—S MarshallTalk/Cont 20:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Further investigation Jukes wrote the first two hour episode Waking the Dead which garnered a 43% share of the UK audience and guaranteed recommission. The series went on to win Emmy awards and has been broadcast in many countries including the US. Also sole creator of UK prime time three-season show In Deep also with international credits. And was one of two writers on a Bafta award winning show Sea of Souls. Inspector Lynley Mysteries likewise. Film length 90 minute episodes to close season 5 and open season six, and this was the first time the show stopped being based on the Elizabeth George novel. Extensive other TV credits.
Don't know about the books and essays or blogs but I know my TV and have seen several of his shows both in US and overseas. Not a minor episodic writer. Lots of research and cross referencing later I can say without a problem Keep --Moloch09 (talk) 22:17, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Book and author are notable [4]. Screenwriting a few episodes here and there and contributing articles now and again isn't enough to establish notability, but it adds to the already substantial notability in this case. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Major Inclusion of Sources Alright folks... rather than spam the thread... I've done some rather exhausting research; I'll post it at the "Discussion" page, since I'm not so good at making those nifty dropdown menus yet. Head over there for all the references we could possibly need. Ks64q2 (talk) 02:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All the sources i see here are en passant, don't establish anything about this guys notability. No no non-trivial coverage, etc (and one of them is talking about guys in the restaurant business, and has a passant mention of a "peter jukes" who owns a restaurant. Same guy? Unclear, at best. Even if so, so what?)Bali ultimate (talk) 02:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the restaurant guy is someone else. But the article now has non-trivial coverage of Jukes' work including Washington Times and Boston Globe reviews, and more. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And it's an extensive list... if anyone has any problems with it, let me know. It took me over an hour and judicious use of Babelfish. Phew. The things I do for Wikipedia... Ks64q2 (talk) 02:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And it's mostly garbage. Responded on talk.Bali ultimate (talk) 03:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please, Bali: "And it's mostly garbage" is a bit on the unpleasant side. There's no need for that, and particularly after this has already gone to WQA and AN/I.—S MarshallTalk/Cont 09:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do plan to add About Slavery to his radio work section. Hey, but what's up with the New Yorker? I've been searching in vain for this one. But when I click on your link it takes me to something else entirely. Are you sure you've got the link right? thanks, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I avoid political articles and do not want to get into Motley Moose debate, but tracking back nominator timestamps it seems the speedy delete for this came as a direct result of a visit there. I'm sure Bali ultimate has no bad intentions but it looks like an attempt at reverse wikilayering. Notability cannot be inherited but it shouldn't be disinherited either. --Moloch09 (talk) 17:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, sources establish notability (e.g. the Journal of Sociology and the Boston Globe book reviews), TV credits are a good bonus, mentions in newspapers like El Pais are in themselves often "in passing" but give an indication of his notability as well. I suppose that the Scottish chef Peter Jukes is unrelated though? Fram (talk) 10:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's a different Peter Jukes, it seems. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can we close this AfD now? Even the "delete" votes seem to have changed their minds. Thanks. Ks64q2 (talk) 03:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, let the last delete flip or the rest can play out for the next few days. -- Banjeboi 10:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of course youre right bonejboi but the remaining delete from Eusebeus is cited 'as per Sloan' who has just flipped. Meanwhile I'll try to plug in any interesting sources from the stuff you've ported over to the article talk. Thanks --Moloch09 (talk) 10:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I read through the article concerned, the discussion and the AFD here. From the article, the Editors comments above and the references, to me it is beyond doubt that Peter Jukes passes any notability threshold that Wiki may have. Personal Note: I'm an Inspector Lynley fan, have seen Peter Jukes on the credits couple of times. --Louisprandtl (talk) 16:55, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reference Hyperlink Problem Ref [31] here [[10]] links to a Review on MadMen [11]in San Francisco Chronicle instead to Jerome's article at MyDD [12]. The hyperlink needs to be fixed. --Louisprandtl (talk) 18:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sloane has reverted to keep so which is it?--Moloch09 (talk) 05:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Damn his treacherous hide! Obviously per nom. X MarX the Spot (talk) 05:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But the nom no longer even remotely describes the rewritten state of the article, which is now richly sourced. Have you looked at it? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:08, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article has enough reliable sources to show notability. I could do without Refs 33 and 35, which are blog links to MyDD and MotleyMoose, respectively, that in my view are not reliable sources, but there are enough other references that are good to justify keeping. EdJohnston (talk) 18:28, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Restoring link because Sloane objected to lack of sourcing for Peter Jukes username 'Brit' writing for Moose - although he states so in prospect. Web Page tagged with his real name. --Moloch09 (talk) 22:23, 20 March 2009 (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.