Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stuart Campbell (journalist)


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 07:23, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Stuart Campbell (journalist)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)
 * See also first AfD in 2007 at Articles for deletion/Stuart Campbell (video game journalist)

This subject of this article barely meets notability guidelines, there has been constant edit warring and Stuart Campbell himself has requested that it be deleted. I therefore propose that we do just that and have added a tag to that effect. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:39, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't see any tag added by you (perhaps you forgot to save?), but be aware that the article has been through an AFD, and normally articles that survive an AfD (especially those that survive via keep rather than no consensus) aren't prodded. Feel free to put it up for AfD again though, obviously. In addition, I think Durova is currently in discussions with Campbell about deletion of the article, so it might be worth waiting a while to see if anything comes from that. Dreaded Walrus t c 14:50, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * "This subject of this article barely meets notability guidelines". Ah, now we see your true colours revealed. Another person claiming to be trying to "improve" the entry by completely obliterating it. 83.67.217.135 (talk) 17:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I probably did forget to save last time but I have added the tag and saved it now. I also checked 'what links here' it is is essentially nothing.  Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Martin, It appears that you didn't create the AfD page properly. Check it again; its still blank. Themfromspace (talk) 19:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps someone who knows how to do it properly could do it. If nobody thinks it is worth doing then there is no point anyway. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC) Text copied from discussion on article talk page, slightly refactored to allow for AfD's conventions. I'm just clearing a backlog and have no opinion whatsoever on this AfD or the article. ➨ ❝ ЯEDVERS ❞ a reasonably good buy 19:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak keep Indeed this is a problematic article and indeed there appear to be conflicts of interest with the subject, but those aren't valid reasons in themselves to delete an article.  The largest reason I can see for deletion is that under WP:Biographies_of_living_persons/Help articles of people with transitory notability can be deleted.  In my opinion, notability isn't temporary, and since Campbell meets WP:N today, his notability isn't transitory or of minor significance and this article should be kept, problems notwithstanding. Themfromspace (talk) 23:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Also, what good does the conversation above serve for this AfD? It's odd seeing that I commented in this before I ever went here. Themfromspace (talk) 23:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep "Barely meets notability guidelines" is a reason for keep, not for nominating for deletion. COI is not a reason to delete, nor are difficulties in editing or maintaining NPOV. DGG (talk) 00:40, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 *  Keep Delete (see comment below) original comment: - I think the only reasons for deletion are that the article is problematic (not a valid reason), and that the subject himself has requested deletion. If that request goes through then obviously I support the deletion; otherwise I don't think the reasons for deletion are good. I think we have well-supported articles about people who are less notable than Campbell. Jumble Jumble (talk) 11:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Reason for switch - actually, I've been kind of taking it on faith that the subject of this article passes WP:N or WP:BIO - "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. " (I've included the footnotes for this statement below). When you look at that, I'm not 100% convinced. The article currently relies very heavily on self-published material. Of the 12 currently listed sources, five are from Campbell's own site, one is a page which contains a short blurb and then a link to Campbell's site, one is a link to another Wikipedia article, one is simply the words "Amiga Power" with no other information, one is used to verify two statements about Campbell but doesn't actually mention him at all, and one is a link back in to the same article (actually I think this one is an accidentally-removed book citation). The other two seem good, but only one of them probably fits the definition of a reliable secondary source, and the context in which Campbell is mentioned doesn't really establish notability very strongly. I mean, it's NTK - I've been in that. (It does indeed verify that they calle him "Britain's best games journalist".) Perhaps someone could give a quick list of the secondary sources that can be used to establish notability here? Thanks. Jumble Jumble (talk) 10:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)