Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Giles Vickers-Jones (2nd nomination)

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:34, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Giles Vickers-Jones[edit]

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

Still questionably notable and improvable since the first AfD given that my searches only found this, this, this and this. Not only has this hardly been changed since, simply look at the first and only version the author ever made here. Pinging past commenters Fæ, Jll (although this one is not noticeably active), Graeme Bartlett, BabbaQ, JohnCD and also the usual users interested with this subject Onel5969, MichaelQSchmidt, [email protected] and also DGG who may be interested to comment. SwisterTwister talk 07:57, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:59, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:59, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:59, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Having a currently low internet footprint is not a rationale to delete. The encyclopaedia could legitimately have a BLP for every established TV presenter since 1936. Vickers-Jones' participation in California Dreaming (TV series) (2012) is the latest reference I get from Nexis. --Fæ (talk) 08:11, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 November 2. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:11, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep' as a suitable stub on a person whose coverage just meets WP:BASIC. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:59, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am very reluctant to differ from MQS in this field,but this is subminimal. Apparently a very minor figure as a presenter., nor is California Dreaming important enough to give notability to the participants. There is no profession at all where I would agree that everyone in it should have an article. DGG ( talk ) 07:04, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Slightly odd, I would have thought there were plenty of professions where there is a consensus that all are notable. Olympians (including those that never win anything) and Judges spring to mind. I note that the article does not cover his past in journalism, such as his regular columns in Love it! and Reveal Magazine (U.S.).
- I suggest that Wikipedia has a default systemic bias to "harder" subject areas, so "law" is much easier to created articles for than the nebulous other end of the spectrum of "fashion" and celebrity gossip journalism. Were an established lawyer, rather than an established male fashion model, to have 3 published books, editorial columns published in national magazines and have been a presenter and producer for TV programmes, then there would be no discussion here. For this reason alone I think we should take care to give the benefit of the doubt. --Fæ (talk) 07:33, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:36, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are 6 refs in the article, 3 are 404 pages, 2 don't mention him, 1 is a blog question and answer. Szzuk (talk) 15:31, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly does not meet WP:GNG, and I'm on the other side of the fence than MichaelQSchmidt on this one, as I feel the breadth of the mentions about this presenter don't meet the requirements of WP:BASIC. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:54, 17 November 2015 (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.