Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barra Best

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 12:03, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Barra Best[edit]

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

Does not meet notability criteria. Local weather forecaster. Most "references" ~~are complete nonsense~~ do not meet the verifiability criteria. Working for the BBC does not necessarily make you notable. Not really any other sources stating his notability Mootros (talk) 06:06, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment References are "complete nonsense"? Please elaborate. These are factual articles and news reports. There are hundreds of journalists and weather forecasters on Wikipedia, are these all to be considered for deletion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.4.26.218 (talk) 10:31, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for the non-technical phrase. Most references do not meet the Wikipedia:Verifiability criteria; they are NOT third-party sources. An article written by Mr Best about a stolen car is a primary source in terms of verifying the claim that he writes for the BBC website. As such it does not establish notability so ever. Similarly a video featuring Mr Best as a "reference" to claim that he appears in BBC videos is original research; it does not establish any notability either. However if there would be an article in for example the The Times saying Mr Best writes for the BBC website and is on the BBC news there might be a possibility to establish notability. Judging from the geolocation of your IP and the edits associated with this IP, a possible conflict of interest might be suspected. In order to avoid complication, it is advisable to declare any such interest in certain circumstances. Many thanks and best of luck! Mootros (talk) 23:31, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't seem to meet WP:CREATIVE. Like most journalists he's written quite a lot about other things, there just doesn't seem to be much being written about him. I wouldn't consider Belfast Media Group's 40 under 40 award to be a significant enough award for the page to stand. Funny ^Pika! 12:27, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 00:10, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While I appreciate the sheer number of references for such a short article, this is still a non-notable news anchor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grande (talk • contribs) 00:51, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Every reference to him I can find has "BBC" in the name. Doesn't meet WP:BIO. Deadbeef (talk) 03:21, 17 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.