- Tim Marriott (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Insufficient input to decide either way. The debate should have been relisted. This guy is barely any more notable than several other Brittas Empire actors with similar careers have recently been closed as merge at Afd, so leaving this as an outlier seems odd to me, on the strength of two plays put on in minor theatres. MickMacNee (talk) 00:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse Relist would have been a reasonable option (and maybe better frankly) but this was a reasonable close. Hobit (talk) 02:45, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse close Two wanted it kept, nominator wanted it deleted. News coverage of the person was found, as the closing administrator said in their closing statements. Dream Focus 04:43, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. I would've relisted it myself, but it isn't an unreasonable close. Black Kite (t) (c) 06:51, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Could reasonably have been relisted, but keep was not entirely unreasonable. Weak endorse. Stifle (talk) 08:39, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The challenge was essentially that the guy is not notable. In the debate, it was shown that he is notable, by providing links to the two reliable sources that have noted him. There's no need to relist when one side's main point has been explicitly refuted; that was an excellent close. Endorse.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 09:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the quality of sources in that case was actually debatable. Thus I'd have preferred a relist for further discussion. But as I say above, the close is reasonable. Hobit (talk) 13:09, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Good Lord. What's the matter with The Guardian or The Stage?—S Marshall Talk/Cont 19:54, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Nothing, but the articles don't cover Mr. Marriott in any real detail. More than a passing mention but not much more. Hobit (talk) 21:47, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse close The article was brought to AFD on March 31,[1] it was discussed, improved, additional comments were made, and the closing admin made a reasonable assessment on April 8, based upon the discussion.[2] The close was per guideline and policy and in no way flawed. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 18:41, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- endorse close per Michael. I could see this having been closed as a relist but this is a reasonable close. No compelling reason to overturn this result. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:59, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. A relist may have been possible, but the close was also fine. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:14, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdraw This guy does not pass ENT in a million years to my eye, and this article does not, and likely never will, resemble a complete biographical article as required by BLP, that's 100% certain. And with one formal 'keep' and very little certainty on show, that Afd is not, and never will be, sustainable evidence of a rigourous examination of the article against either the relevant BLP policy or the relevant notability guideline, and should 100% have been relisted and examined properly, preferrably with some input by editors who have the first idea whether fringe productions of evidently zero lasting impact have in the past constituted evidence of significant work as defined by Wikipedia, rather than the entirely predictable but wholly deficient response of 'sourced, notable'. I'm unwatching the article as I have far too many of these irritating reminders of the broken-ness of Afd on it already, so I trust at least one of you will take responsibility for this decision. Watch out for that IP who was attempting to erase half the 'article', the bit that apparently shows he has been a signficiant playwright. I feel genuinely sorry now for the likes of Michael Burns, whose biography in comparison to Marriot, looks like Michael Caine's CV, yet he was quite rightly merged, as he does not pass ENT either. But that's Afd for you, totally pointless and predictably unpredictable. MickMacNee (talk) 03:29, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|