Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Coyle BBC


 * 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. Cbrown1023 talk 00:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Mark Coyle BBC

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete - not finding the independent sources that attest to the subject's notability. The page is currently sourced by the BBC page (not independent), a website for a club he's associated with and a blog. The article was written entirely by User:Mark Coyle so there are obvious WP:COI issues. Otto4711 04:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. A cursory check of the BBC weblink provided in the article turned this up: Mark Coyle's BBC bio.  It attributes every particular of the article.  RGTraynor 15:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Note that a source from the BBC for someone who works for the BBC is not independent, as I noted in the nomination. Otto4711 20:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: So what?  Do you consider the BBC an unreliable source?  RGTraynor 20:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I consider an unverified, probably self-published bio on a BBC website to be an unreliable source and contributory to the COI problems inherent in the article. If the gentleman is notable, there should be multiple independent sources, meaning not self-published, and someone other than the subject of the article should be contributing to it. Otto4711 21:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I find your argument completely unconvincing. The BBC is not merely a reliable source, but damn near the gold standard of reliable media sources upon which we rely.  Furthermore, I'm unsure what your premise is for claiming that this bio is "self-published," other than it is on the BBC website and that Coyle works for the BBC ... how many tens of thousands of employees must the Beeb have?  Claiming that the BBC is unreliable just because the subject of the article works for it is a dizzying leap of logic for which I'd be interested in seeing your supporting evidence.  Finally, while you lean heavily on the "independent" source argument, in point of fact, nothing in WP:ATT requires the use of independent sources having no connection to the article's subject.  Using such sources should be done with caution, but "Primary source material that has been published by a reliable source may be used for the purposes of attribution in Wikipedia ..."   RGTraynor 05:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Part of his job is to publish material on the BBC website. That makes the BBC website, as it relates to him, self-published. I would not suggest that the BBC is not a reliable source for stories that are not about topics or persons directly related to the BBC, but in an instance of a BBC website maintainer it's not. The portion of the article talking about his leisure interests is sourced by the website for an organization of which he is the leader, which as far as I'm concerned also constitutes a self-published source. As far as using such sources go, the relevant section of WP:ATT states: "Material from self-published or questionable sources may be used in articles about those sources, so long as:
 * it is relevant to their notability;
 * it is not contentious;
 * it is not unduly self-serving;
 * it does not involve claims about third parties, or about events not directly related to the subject;
 * there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it;
 * the article is not based primarily on such sources." (emphasis added)
 * This article is based entirely on self-published sources and the plain text of WP:ATT states that such sources are unacceptable. The article has no sources that meet WP:ATT Otto4711 12:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It is certainly possible that he put up that material. It is by no means self-evident, and you're presuming (based on what premise I cannot fathom) that the BBC is in the habit of letting its webmasters just put up anything they want without any internal controls whatsoever.  Furthermore, you're leaving out the beginning sentence in your laundry list - that they pertain either to:
 * * "A questionable source is one with no editorial oversight or fact-checking process or with a poor reputation for fact-checking ... Questionable sources may only be used in articles about themselves;" or
 * * "A self-published source is material that has been published by the author, or whose publisher is a vanity press, a web-hosting service, or other organization that provides little or no editorial oversight."
 * I can think of no grounds under which a news organization with the sheer prestige of the BBC falls under either category. RGTraynor 13:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Right, material that has been published by the author. That's an either-or statement so if it meets either side it's self-published. It's not in the slightest unreasonable to think that a person responsible for maintaining content on the BBC website might have had something to do with writing the content of the bio found on the BBC website. You've also failed to address the fact that the remainder of the article is sourced by the website of an organization of which he is the chairman, you've failed to address the fact that there are no sources other than ones that are directly connected to the subject himself that attest to his notability and you've failed to address the conflict of interest issues. Otto4711 14:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * (shrugs) The WP:COI guideline (and it is only a guideline) discourages editors with a conflict of interest; it is neither implicitly nor explicitly prima facie grounds for deletion.  You have consistently refused to tender your proof that Coyle wrote that bio himself on the BBC website, and you've consistently refused to explain which, if any, biographical elements you challenge.  In effect, the sole prop for your argument to delete is the premise that the BBC must be publishing lying bios about its own employees.  There comes a point where common sense should apply, and we're well past it.  RGTraynor 17:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, no, the "prop" for my belief that the article should be deleted is that there are no independent reliable sources of which he has been the primary source that attest to the subject's notability. I'm not quite clear where the breakdown in your understanding of that is. It is not a question of "challenging" specific biographical details. It is a question that the article as a whole is not properly attributed. Nor did I ever say that the COI was in and of itself grounds for deletion but it is something that should be weighed in the process rather than just dismissed with "it's just a guideline." Can I prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Coyle himself sat at a comuter and typed out the BBC entry word-for-word? Of course not. But hey, common sense tells me that the guy who's responsible for maintaining the content of a website had a hand in creating the material. Otto4711 17:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep per source found by RGTraynor. And would someone please add to the article? Alf Photoman  18:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment, if BBC is unreliable please check these:
 * The Telegraph
 * Mark Coyle
 * Glasgow Student
 * epuk.org
 * + 16000 Google hits searching "Mark Coyle" + BBC
 * Alf Photoman 22:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The Telegraph item is about someone named Greg Dyke. The Motherwell Athletics Club is an organization of which Coyle is the chairman, meaning that it's not independent. The Glsgow Student item is a program booklet which mentions Coyle as one of a number of speakers, in a note that's about two paragraphs long, making it a trivial reference. And the EPUK site appears to be an email list, which is one step below a blog as far as a source goes, and I didn't notice a reference to Coyle in it anyway. None of these sources meet WP:ATT. Otto4711 23:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The Telegraph article is a petition against the dismissal of Greg Dyke, signed by Coyle among many others, and you have surely checked all other 16000 hits? Alf Photoman  23:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * A petition signed by dozens or hundreds of people does not establish the notability of the people who signed it. And I'm not the one seeking to keep this article, thus it is not my responsibility to check any sources. I did in fact check several dozen Google hits before nominating the article and, as noted, did not find any sources. Otto4711 23:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Let's see ... we have a PDF of a flier for a media convention in Glasgow in 2005 with Coyle as a panelist and a short bio ... RGTraynor 17:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Two paragraphs out of a multipage document. That would constitute a trivial mention. You'd think someone bursting with such notability would be the subject of at least one substantial reference that wasn't put up by someone with a direct connection, but it's not like standards actually matter I guess. Otto4711 17:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep per RDTraynor. Edison 16:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per RGTraynor. Claiming that the BBC source is not independent in this case is like arguing that British government sources are not independent of anyone who was or is affiliated with the British government, whether its Tony Blair or a groundskeeper at an RAF installation.  -- Black Falcon 05:28, 17 March 2007 (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.