Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edmund Trebus


 * 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. Feel free to discuss a merge or move on the article's talkpage. J04n(talk page) 17:50, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Edmund Trebus

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not notable enough - Only appeared in a TV programme. Rrose Selavy (talk) 20:36, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep He meets WP:GNG. I added some references to the article, with some obituaries and a discussion on him in a book on hoarding; and he was also the subject of multiple BBC TV programs, with appearances in A Life of Grime and an hour-long special Mr Trebus: A Life of Grime. --Colapeninsula (talk) 22:14, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. Have you counted the Wikipedia articles for people who "Only appeared in a TV programme" (try and include the fictional characters and puppets)? Worth keeping for John Peel's laconic narration alone. p.s. "Rrose", I am the last person to want to pull rank... but 1,431 edits in nearly seven years? really?? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:00, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * What relevance does that have?  Why don't you count up the number of edits the other person who suggested deletion of this page as well in the article's talk page? Pathetic. Some of us don't live just to edit Wiki and have other things to do. An irrelevant point like the one about John Peels narrative. Rrose Selavy (talk) 13:33, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It's such a good job you have a sense of humour. Some of us don't live just to RfD Wiki articles. C'est la vie. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:33, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Then don't bring the issue up to score some kind of irrelevant point then try to imply you were only "joking" anyway. Rrose Selavy (talk) 14:47, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see. That's what I was doing. Anything else I have to do? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:36, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah. Stop digging when more than one person has called you out for something clearly unnecessary. C'est la vie. Rrose Selavy (talk) 18:39, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems there is no place for humour at this page, so I have struck out the comments which seem to have troubled you so much. I apologise further if you think my flippant comment about the excellent narration by John Peel was irrelevant. Another failed attempt at levity, I'm afraid. I wonder how many episodes of the series, which featured Trebus, you have watched? I'll also ask again about how many Wikipedia articles exist for people who have "only appeared in a TV programme". p.s. for your information, Volunteer Marek has made 36,805 edits, over nearly 8 years - but we all seem to agree that's irrelevant. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:39, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I saw them when they were broadcast. The fact is, appearing in a TV programme is not sole criteria for having an article of your own, just because many others have articles of their own - is once again irrelevant. Every reality TV participant, even prominent ones, do not automatically get a wiki page. It could as suggested be included in an article about the program but as I have already said below, that article doesn't currently exist and the article for the series that he first appeared in has no references or sources.

Rrose Selavy (talk) 21:37, 2 February 2013 (UTC)


 * But it's obvious from the "presence of multiple secondary sources", that the simple appearance in the programme is not being used as the sole criterion. By the way, would it be useful if we all used standard indenting conventions, edit summaries and chronological posting here? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:29, 2 February 2013 (UTC)


 * There are "multiple secondary sources" for countless individuals on Wiki. That doesn't mean they should automatically get their own page, when for example it might now be merged with another. Rrose Selavy (talk) 00:50, 3 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep as even if I'm not fond of keeping this article because his claim to fame isn't that notable. However, considering the presence of multiple secondary sources, it passes WP:GNG. Similarly, your comment on Rrose's edit count is highly irrelevant and rather condescending, Martinevans. Sang&#39;gre Habagat (talk) 13:41, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I have now struck out this comment, Sang&#39;gre Habagat, as it seems to have caused so much unnecessary consternation. I'm not quite sure why, if this article was moved, all of the multiple secondary sources could not be moved with it? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:39, 2 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Move to Mr Trebus: A Life of Grime. I think the BBC episode may be notable, unlike the person. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 14:20, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

If most or all of the relevant info on him could perhaps be merged or integrated into a programme page but http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Life_of_Grime has no sources and no one has yet felt the programme that featured him notable enough to make a wiki article as it currently doesn't exist. Rrose Selavy (talk) 14:54, 2 February 2013 (UTC)


 * If most of the content could be kept, then why not. That seems a sensible compromise, Piotrus. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:35, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I could have sworn I made that suggestion. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:54, 2 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. The multiple obituaries in major national newspapers substantiate notability. Possible renaming or merging is an editorial matter that can be discussed on the talk page, but deletion is not required. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:08, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:43, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:43, 6 February 2013 (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.