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. The keep !votes do not address the argument that there is a lack of significant coverage of the subject in independent, reliable sources. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:53, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rupert Myers (journalist)[edit]

Rupert Myers (journalist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

WP:BLP of a journalist, without the level of reliable source coverage needed to support a BLP. More than half of the "references" here are to content for which he's the bylined author, not the subject — and once you discount those, not a single one of the remaining references is substantively about him, but rather every last one of them merely namechecks his existence in an article about some other topic. This is not what it takes to get a journalist into Wikipedia: it takes media coverage in which he's substantively the subject of the reference, in a volume sufficient to satisfy WP:GNG. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if it can be sourced better than this. Bearcat (talk) 20:18, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 01:54, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 01:54, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:32, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:32, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep meets notability with recent work on Jeremy Corbyn and known in UK press and as sky news presenter. Benjamin moores (talk) 16:41, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is a factor of the reliable sourcing you can provide to properly support the claim — none of Wikipedia's notability criteria can ever be passed simply by asserting that it's passed but not sourcing the fact properly. If this had proper sourcing in it, that would be perfectly acceptable as a claim of notability — but it's not a claim of notability that entitles him to keep an article that's sourced this way. Bearcat (talk) 16:48, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See recent edits. You can help sourcing it better. No one else would vote to delete this. Benjamin moores (talk) 17:21, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did look at the "recent edits". Of the two new sources you added, one was just a reduplication of a primary source that was already present in the article, and the other one isn't substantively about him, but merely features him giving soundbite in an article whose subject is the play — and even if we give that latter source the benefit of the doubt as to whether it contributes GNG points or not, one source still isn't enough to pass GNG if all the rest of the sourcing around it is bad. And no, I can't help source this better myself — I have access to Canadian media databases, not UK ones, so for a British topic I can only assist in direct referencing improvement if their sourceability crosses The Pond somehow. Bearcat (talk) 17:44, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and draft & userfy for now at best until a better solid article is available. SwisterTwister talk 06:10, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep notable and known throughout British media.Funkygishh (talk) 13:28, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I can find neither sources that cover him an sufficient depth, although there is this : [1], and he could become notable if the musical hits. At present, I find no evidence of a sufficiently notable body of work to justify an article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:23, 2 February 2016 (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.