Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wilfred De'ath

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. J04n(talk page) 11:24, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wilfred De'ath[edit]

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

Requested by WP:BLPN. Lacking sources completely (Note Google Search is not a valid reference). BLP issues <redacted>. Seems marginally notable but needs either major expansion and properly writing, or deleting. I would have PRODDED it but I think the author would have removed the template and just ignored it. Barney the barney barney (talk) 23:57, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It falls under WP:BLPPROD. There no sources. He himself is not a notable person just because of his arrest. I would even recommend speedy deletion under A7, non-notable person. ~~JHUbal27 02:00, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't fall under BLPprod for two reasons, there was a very reliable source that has been removed as undue and another link that when you click on it does confirm information in the article. BLPprod is an awkward and unsatisfactory compromise, but if a facebook entry is sufficient to avert it then this link is much better. As for A7, A7 is not for non-notable people. The test for A7 is deliberately much lower, whether there is an assertion of importance or significance. Where notability is in doubt, then as in this case AFD is the correct venue. Ϣere SpielChequers 07:01, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The subject is a man not a woman. Warden (talk) 10:08, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN person, whose bio was created solely in response of a news report related to a scandal. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 04:20, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While the article was created as a result of the news reports around the scandal, it's now fairly obvious that the subject is notable and the bio merits inclusion. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:43, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Had a long career as a journalist and producer and so passes WP:JOURNALIST. Now writes a column in The Oldie and keeps showing up on TV and radio in shows about people like Kenny Everett. The latest scandal is not the first and you can read about another one in Caterer and Hotelkeeper. He is enough of a character that the Times went to interview him in 2003. Obviously, his bio will need watching but we should maintain a stub with the plain facts as otherwise people will keep trying to create an article and will think that there's a cover-up if we have nothing. Warden (talk) 10:08, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Warden's argument. This person is not a single-event nobody. Most of his life was pre-internet which will make finding coverage harder, but that's no reason to stop looking.--Auric talk 11:40, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It now seems to be a substantial article about a substantial person. Jb1944 (talk) (orig.author) —Preceding undated comment added 14:40, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Between what's in the article and my own searches, I couldn't find enough coverage that was squarely about this person to meet either WP:JOURNALIST or WP:ANYBIO. I find mostly passing mention, and there's little to say about the subject's own works, no matter where published, if nothing's been said in other reliable sources. JFHJr (㊟) 20:06, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep -- my initial reaction was NN, but I am persuaded by those who have voted to keep. This is the second columnist recently. I wonder if we need to amend WP:JOURNALIST to make it clear that named columnists for national newspapers; journalsists frequently given a by-line for their reports in national newspapers; and commentators frequently used by media other than their employer qualify. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:52, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fresh source I was just reading a large two-page spread in the Evening Standard which you can read online too. This is full of biographical detail and so amply passes WP:SIGCOV. Warden (talk) 17:40, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added fresh sources, the best one being this The Times, and edited the copy. It still needs more attention by others. It is now clear that De'ath has WP:SIGCOV as he is the subject of at least two profiles in reputable, major news sources and he appears in others. What the additional sources also show is that he is known for more than one event or scandal as coverage spans a long period of time.Crtew (talk) 12:47, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The first page of Google news lists 750 articles including from Sydney Morning Herald, with all of the 10 visible sources appearing to be good hits. The first page of Google books shows that this person is the author of multiple books, and includes a 2011 book with in-depth analysis of a De'ath writing assignment in 1970.

Howard Malchow (18 Feb 2011). Special Relations: The Americanization of Britain?. Stanford University Press. pp. 115–. ISBN 978-0-8047-7783-4. Retrieved 2013-04-04. In the summer of 1970 the BBC turned to Wilfred De'Ath to "explain" the countercultural phenomenon in England. De'Ath—whose eclectic interests were those of a freelance opportunist—had no particular connection with the...

Unscintillating (talk) 01:57, 5 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.