Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Giles Vickers-Jones


 * 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. JohnCD (talk) 13:21, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Giles Vickers-Jones

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This individual is non-notable. The reference supplied is an interview, generally not accepted by the community as establishing notability. The Google News archives provide a grand total of 18 hits&mdash;and with all due respect to WP:GHITS, there is nothing there to come close to demonstrating notability. Bongo  matic  14:14, 4 April 2011 (UTC) Bongo, seriously, you are not looking cool for skool today. Maybe stick to history topics? How about look at Alton Towers or Battersea Station and their owners.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CelebrityFanClub (talk • contribs) 14:36, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I am unclear why it was necessary to delete the PROD and go to AFD within a few hours of this article being created. I have added a bibliography and a second reference to a national newspaper without having to do anything more than check GBooks and GNews. Having never heard of this presenter, I originally looked at the speedy G11 raised on the original non-neutral version to see if it was a reasonable speedy deletion case, however there seems every prospect of being able to improve the sources further were anyone more interested in improvement rather than finding a reason to delete. In my opinion this is a situation where some of the friendly improvement notices available for newly created articles seem far more appropriate rather than slapping on a series of escalating deletion notices based on a weak search. Fæ (talk) 18:41, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep with Fae's references there is sufficient to show notability, I thought my blpprod was a de-escallation, rather than speedy deleting it when improvement was easy. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:11, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, Fae's references establish notability. Jll (talk) 21:58, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. The references are, in order, a brief interview, a trivial passing mention, and a feature in an alumni magazine. Interviews alone are not "independent" coverage and have not been found to establish notability. The passing mention, obviously, is not "significant coverage". And the alumni magazine article is neither a reliable source nor independent. Bongo  matic  02:05, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The article was the first attempt created by a new editor and it has not yet been 24 hours since it was created. In that time it has had a speedy, PROD and AFD when it could simply have been trimmed to remove the spammish text (which I did) and had an improvement notice put on it to encourage the new editor. The editor has not contributed since having their user page filled with templated notices (though they were never correctly informed of the BLPPROD). I disagree that interviews are not independent coverage as these are often incredibly useful sources for BLPs and just because it is an interview does not mean that the newspaper ignores its own editorial policy. In this case the fact of being chosen for the 60 seconds feature in the Metro says a great deal about the significant impact of a celebrity. Rather than arguing the case, perhaps you could spend a little time going back to the article creator to advise them on how to do a better job next time rather than scaring them off Wikipedia. Thanks Fæ (talk) 06:39, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep -Fae have showed that this article is notable.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:56, 9 April 2011 (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.