Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Forstater

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The result was withdrawn. E.M.Gregory has brought sourcing in the article up such standards that it's painfully clear that it meets notability guidelines (like WP:AUTHOR). (non-admin closure)MJLTalk 02:46, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Mark Forstater

Mark Forstater (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Fostater has only been noted for his participation in producing Monty Python and the Holy Grail and subsequently suing the members of Monty Python over royalty payments related to Spamalot. WP:BLP1E certainly applies here. Failing deletion, this article should at least be made into a redirect to Monty Python#Monty Python Live (Mostly): One Down, Five to Go or Monty Python Live (Mostly)#Overview. Regards, –MJLTalk 09:07, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. –MJLTalk 09:07, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. –MJLTalk 09:07, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:26, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:26, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:26, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. produced multiple films, seems to have written several books, scads of news coverage, by no means all focused on the law suit. No way this is a WP:BLP1E . Nom may have been misled by the fact that the page was brief, paltry and focused on the lawsuit.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:33, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
    @E.M.Gregory: It is true that the article is misleading in that regard. However, I did do a bit of WP:BEFORE. This was the only sure-fire WP:RS I found (an Anne Frank documentary he produced-- only a single mention of him). Besides that, I found this anonymous review of I Survived A Secret Nazi Extermination Camp (his book), and he's listed here among other names as a part of the extra features to the DVD release of Xtro. I had to go digging past the pages and pages of articles on the lawsuit in order to find those, though. To my knowledge, he really is only spoken about in terms of that one event in his life. (edit conflict)MJLTalk 20:54, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I see that he has produced a number of bluelinked films. My searches produced not too few hits, but too many to scan. But do note that one can become notable for being part of a lawsuit that generates WP:SIGCOV of your career, background and so forth. I'm hoping an editor with the time to and interest to read the many articles about topics other than the law suit will weigh in. It does look as though he won the law suit, which I take tomean that the court credited him with a major role in creating one of the funniest films ever made.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:20, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't think Killing Heat is all that notable (other language wikis generally have it merged with The Grass Is Singing) whileThe Fantasist and Marigolds in August are both stubs. The Glitterball is a well developed start-class article, though. If it becomes the question of whether or not Forstater meets WP:FILMMAKER, my answer would have likely been no. The reviews don't seem all that meaningful nor do they even uniformly mention him (Trivial mention in [1] and [2]; significant mention in [3]; many more that don't mention him at all).
    However, you do raise a rather interesting point I did not yet think about; If one does consider Monty Python and the Holy Grail to be a co-creation of his, he would sail through the notability guidelines. Up to this point, I have been operating on the assumption that he hasn't been sufficiently credited with the making of that (yes, extremely amazing) film (mostly because the article state pre-nomination gave more weight to the lawsuit than his production as well as what I got from the sources on the lawsuit that I personally read). We'll have to see with that point. Good work on improving the article so far! –MJLTalk 21:54, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
  • It's clear that Forsteter was always legally credited with being 1/14 of the Holy Grail creative team . Now he's legally credited as 1/7th of it. but also note that his books have gotten attention, and that there is WP:SIGCOV of of his life and unusually varied career.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:28, 28 May 2019 (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.
Uses material from the Wikipedia article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Forstater, released under the CC BY-SA 3.0 license.