Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Belfield (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. Eddie891 Talk Work 00:29, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Alex Belfield
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I've nominated this biography before, which ended as no consensus as there was basically no activity on the AfD. This is a BLP of a minor radio and press journalist, of which the vast majority of the sources are either (a) to his own website and YouTube channel, or (b) simply links to stories that he's written in other press outlets. There are simply no third-party sources, apart from negative ones where his misbehaviour on radio was commented on. If we removed the primary and passing mentions, we would be left with an article which basically said "this is a journalist who did these couple of fairly trivial bad things". Black Kite (talk) 23:53, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:51, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:51, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:51, 6 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. This person is a minor radio presenter and journalist. Nothing about him is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:47, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unlike the claim made by the sole other participant in the first discussion, the existence of two reliable sources is not necessarily enough to get a person over WP:GNG — if you're shooting for "has a hard pass of an inherent notability marker, like winning a top award in his field or being elected as an MP", then one or two sources is enough, but if you're shooting for "hasn't accomplished anything inherently notable, but is soft notable anyway because media coverage exists", then it takes a lot more than just two sources to vault that bar. But no, the article doesn't claim anything that's "inherently" notable enough to justify leaning this heavily on primary sources in lieu of real media coverage. Bearcat (talk) 21:24, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete: Barely found anything about him. Search results return articles written by him and mere mentions of him. ASTIG😎  (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 16:00, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Delete please. Fake and a very false person — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:6B62:40B0:0:883:6DE:C109:EC2D (talk) 06:45, 10 September 2020 (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.