Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alastair McKee

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.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:40, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alastair McKee[edit]

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

Delete. WP:BLP of a television journalist, based entirely on primary sources with the exception of a single news article in which he's a contributing author rather than the subject. A journalist is not automatically entitled to have a poorly sourced Wikipedia article just because he exists -- reliable source coverage about him must be present to confer a WP:JOURNALIST pass, but nothing of that ilk has been shown here. Bearcat (talk) 18:21, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:58, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:58, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:58, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:58, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Secondary source article from leading national newspaper 'The Guardian' added reviewing work of Alastair McKee Felixcallaway (talk) 21:26, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The secondary source referred to above [1] Felixcallaway (talk) 21:28, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New secondary source added [2] Felixcallaway (talk) 21:49, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP of a television journalist, now including reliable secondary sources. This respected and popular BBC journalist should be entitled to have a Wikipedia article -- reliable source coverage about him is included thus conferring a WP:JOURNALIST pass, and has been shown here. Felixcallaway (talk) 22:00, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Guardian article is not about him; in fact, it fails to even contain a single solitary mention of his name at all. And the Gazette and Herald one does contain a mention of his name, but fails to contain anything more than a glancing namecheck of his existence. It's not enough to add sources in which his name appears, serving only to verify that he exists — he has to be the subject of the media coverage for it to count toward getting him into an encyclopedia, but he isn't the subject of either of those pieces. Bearcat (talk) 00:54, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable television journalist. When people present articles that do not even mention the subject to show notability, it is actually a sign the person is not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:20, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's information and sources but still nothing here actually convincing for solid independent notability, examining the article found nothing. SwisterTwister talk 02:38, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not one source supported his notability to warrant his own article: "He planted a TREE!", "He EMCEED a youth event!" Yawn. — Wylie pedia 17:34, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.