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 no consensus. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Bascombe[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Bio focusing primarily on one event several years ago. Probably fails WP:BLP1E, and I am not sure he meets general notability guidelines (for writers, or otherwise). Lots of trivial/passing mentions - but no real biographical coverage. I'm unsure where we could move/merge the content so suggestions for that would be useful. Errant ^(chat!) 09:42, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the previous Afd was withdrawn because consensus seemed to point to WP:AUTHOR for ghostwriting Jamie Carragher's autobiography [1] and being one of a number of co-authors that compiled a 'best of' Liverpool team sheet [2]. I don't believe he does pass WP:AUTHOR on the above evidence, nor as a journalist and his other claim to fame, switching employers, fails WP:BLP1E. Funny ^Pika! 18:06, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the previous nomination was withdrawn (by me!) not because he met WP:NAUTHOR, but because he met WP:GNG and consensus was clearly in agreement. Giant Snowman 10:17, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't see anything other than WP:BLP1E here. Looking through the article's history, interesting to note that there are three SPAs (Paulawoosey (talk · contribs), Edgar Baron (talk · contribs) and Alistair daniel (talk · contribs)) two of which made attempts to remove the information that he was threatened after moving to the NotW. Draw your own conclusions. Number 5 7 16:18, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Worth noting - one of those editors is the subject himself. Giant Snowman 16:50, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Multiple awards, mentioned in competing newspapers, [3] cited by The New York Times, mentioned in a bunch of sports autobiographies etc. Meets notability AFAICT. I reduced the weirdness in the article, however. Collect (talk) 19:06, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
""Delete"" One of those editing is indeed the subject himself who has noted the ceaseless editing of the page to create a negative slant and believes its initial creation was designed to cause professional embarrassment and emphasise a subjective position on a complex topic surrounding a change in employment – it is quite ludicrous that a page is considered notable on such a flimsy premise. The continued debate on notability merely underlines the view this should be deleted to prevent ongoing vandalism and highly selective use of material creating an incomplete and – as Collect has already noted – weird biography which is not really a biography in any fair or true sense at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edgar Baron (talk • contribs) 09:57, 23 April 2013 (UTC) — Edgar Baron (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --Dweller (talk) 12:40, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just don't understand. What's the BLP1E? He's a journalist who passes GNG. One of his career moves has been questioned, big deal. So long as the coverage of the criticism isn't undue, it's fine, and if it isn't, that's a reason for editing, not deleting. --Dweller (talk) 12:37, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep felt he was notable the last time around and not seeing any change to that.Blethering Scot 13:09, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the conclusions last time this article was AFDd, less than a year ago - he passes GNG. A multi-award winning national journalist and writer, whose move from the Liverpool Echo to The News of The World is of also interest in the context of the boycott of The Sun and News of the World in Liverpool and was the subject of various press coverage. Article in need of improvement - doesn't explain why move to News of the World was controversial. Also, gives the impression that the Guardian, rather than one of its writers offered its support Petepetepetepete (talk) 18:30, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — I'm not convinced the awards are noteworthy. It looks like they're regional industry awards. The apparent 1E was a combo of the threats and job move, which were reported. I'm having a great deal of trouble identifying reliable and substantial biographical coverage of this person, beyond the threats and job move. JFHJr (㊟) 19:14, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As well as WP:BLP1E, WP:BIODEL also applies, since he is relatively unknown. Ken Arromdee (talk) 19:29, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Bascombe is discussed in the autobiographies of Steven Gerrard and Robbie Fowler. In Fowler's autobiography, Fowler makes reference to Bascombe being used by Gerard Houlier to author unfavourable articles and ratings to back Houlier's transfer strategy. The excerpt is freely available on google books and is also reference in the following article from the guardian, which also mentions bascombe by name http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2005/sep/04/features.sport -- In Gerrard's autobiography, Gerrard describes Bascombe as one of the two press people he trusts and says he asked Bascombe to confirm whether quotes in the press made by Houlier were accurate. This side of Bascombe's career, whislt written about in best-selling autobiographies is not mentioned in this article and suggests the article is in need of improvement and expansion, rather than deletion. Petepetepetepete (talk) 21:53, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ANmFyoITK_EC&pg=PA287&lpg=PA287&dq=chris+bascombe+trust+gerrard+autobiography&source=bl&ots=6Hcgod7qTy&sig=_Uk5pUkylztqWd7_JYFiPxijGJs&hl=en&sa=X&ei=D1V4Udq5OaaO0AXhp4CgDQ&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=chris%20bascombe%20trust%20gerrard%20autobiography&f=false is the quote from Gerrard's autobiography.

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=3g4RQjoLLyEC&pg=PA267&dq=chris+bascombe+fowler+autobiography&hl=en&sa=X&ei=VlV4UevKHKms0QWoqYDwBw&ved=0CDkQ6AEwAA is the quote from Fowler's. Further confirms him as passing GNG, to my mind. Petepetepetepete (talk) 22:02, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GNG specifically asks for significant coverage - trivial references don't meet that, I feel. No source has been presented that aptly encompasses Bascombe's career in a notable fashion. --Errant ^(chat!) 22:22, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Trivial references? Fowler writes that Houlier manipulated his relationship with Bascombe as part of a strategy to enable him to be transfer Fowler from the club without angering the fans... Inidicating Bascombe was a key player in the relationship between manager, players and fans, at least during his time at the Liverpool Echo. Certainly evidence against WP:BLP1E, when you add to this the controversy of his move to NOTW, ghost writing of Carragher's autobiography and number of awards won. Whilst it's only a passing reference in Gerrard's autobiography, he is the England and Liverpool captain and probably the most notable sportsmen ever from Liverpool and he says Bascombe is one of two pressmen he trusts.

I still think those references are trivial passing mentions. Outside the context of a Liverpool fan, all that is a young ambitious journalist doing his job. I'm sure other clubs, and large organisations in general, have journalists on speed dial to drip feed inside stories. I don't think being Houllier's press contact necessarily means he meets WP:GNG. Funny ^Pika! 16:54, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Simply being a 'press contact' wouldn't make for GNG alone, but the fact that Fowler writes in his autobiography that Bascombe was used to engineer his multi-million pound move to Leeds suggests an influence and significance that goes above and beyond the usual contact that 'other clubs, and large organisations in general' would have. Also, this of course, is not the sole reason for Bascombe passing GNG (see NOTW move, awards, journalistic career, published books), in fact it's not even in the article at all at present, which needs improving and expanding. Petepetepetepete (talk) 16:13, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:AUTHOR having published works, and ghost written works. He also can pass on account as a published writer for the Daily Telegraph and just passes WP:GNG. Govvy (talk) 19:43, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment appears to present a serious misinterpretation of WP:AUTHOR. There's no indication at all of any critical attention to speak of, and definitely no significant impact. Having published books does make one look at WP:AUTHOR, but simply having published books is not part of those criteria. JFHJr (㊟) 03:06, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

reply, WP:AUTHOR #2 The person is a significant contributor to, a subject of, or used as an expert source by major news agencies or publications. (He has published way over 100 articles in the Daily Telegraph, a major newspaper in England. Have a search of their website! http://www.telegraph.co.uk) He clearly passes on that account to me. That is the most important part to note, because that is why he passes wiki author, on the grounds of section 2. Section #4 The person has created a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. Well, this in part is another step towards notibility, he is a published author, has one known book published for Jamie Carragher who is an extremly well known footballer. This is backed up by citation 3 and 5. And Best XI Liverpool #4 collective body of work. So how can you tell me he doesn't pass wp author when he clearly does. Govvy (talk) 09:21, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your interpretation of #2. Being employed and doing a job for about two years does not make you notable. That criteria was meant for creative professionals to discuss their careers in published sources, not as a catch all inclusion for every journalist who writes about someone or something else. Unless sources pop up documenting his journalistic career, I don't see him fulfilling this. Also I think you may have neglected the latter part of #4, which mentions: "that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Ghostwriting a book does not meet this criteria (many modern books are ghostwritten, but attribution goes to the creative author - who in this case is Carragher) and there are no indications that his other published work meets it either. Funny ^Pika! 16:54, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, the Daily Telegraph is a published source they publish every day! Hence Daily. I read his works often as does most people who read the Telegraph sports section. List of newspapers in the United Kingdom by circulation. A fair number of people buy the publication. You have your interpretation of? You say he isn't notable, but I say differently, he is notable to me and then his notable to other readers. He is a person of note, it's just his article at the moment is pathetic. I don't wand to be rude but I'd say your interpretation is floored. Govvy (talk) 12:04, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may have missed my point. I did not say that the Telegraph was not a large newspaper company nor that Bascombe's articles were not read by many people. I just don't believe that being a journalist and arbitrary number pointing makes one notable. Funny ^Pika! 15:58, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quite clearly, there are a number of sources documenting the subject's journalistic career, some of which already exist on the article. There are the numerous reports in national and regional press about his move to NOTW and also his journalistic career is mentioned in more than one autobiography of notable footballers. Petepetepetepete (talk) 16:18, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as in the last AfD I believe the subject passes WP:GNG, and I don't think BLP1E applies as he is noted for much more than his move to NotW. Mentoz86 (talk) 12:42, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Seems to just about meet WP:AUTHOR #2. —me_and 19:31, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I'm in agreement about WP:AUTHOR but what tipped me over was that he was also awarded the 'Merseyside Journalist of the Year' and the 'Sports Journalist of the Year' award by Bill Kenwright at the Merseyside Media Network Journalism Awards.[4] While obviously not a very prestigious compared to a Pulitzer, it does seem to be the largely attended by the industry. [5]. That in additional to winning the 'Sports Writer of the Year in the North West' seems to meet the WP:ANYBIO criteria for awards, a total of three in addition to his writing credits. Mkdw ^talk 07:46, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep at best: a newspaper reporter and ghostwriter + a couple of awards. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:18, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.