Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Rimmer

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. Keeper ǀ 76 22:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Mike Rimmer

Mike Rimmer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Seems to be a non-notable presenter, however assertions of working for the BBC etc. means it's not really a speedy under WP:CSD#A7. Wider discussion required. Pedro :  Chat  08:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Has a radio show, listed as a show on MySpace, and website has a higher pagerank than the Wikipedia article on Google, which is my unofficial litmus test. Keep unless someone forwards some evidence that this guy is, in fact, not notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crtrue (talk • contribs) 08:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
• Comments (1) How could anyone possibly provide evidence that he is not notable? I don't think WP:N works that way. (2) If the article is kept, it needs some rewriting. It's basically a puff piece for him at the moment. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 11:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment, that's not the way it works. The burden is on the editor who adds information or creates an article to establish the notability of the subject of the article AND provide sufficient 3rd party verifiable resources.--Rtphokie (talk) 21:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment It doesn't, unless Wikipedia exists in a parallel universe. The article is a bit introvertial, but the award might suggest some sort of notability. WilliamH (talk) 13:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The bit about the award was added post this AFD, and certianly there is enough suggestion to keep it from being speedied (hence why I brought it here). I'm not convinced either way at th emoment, but subsequent additions to the article since the start of this debate have certainly improved the notability issue in my eyes. Pedro :  Chat  10:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete WP:BIO insists on "significant" coverage in 3rd party sources. There are 2 references there, 1 is written by his employer (and is therefore a primary source) and the is to an award who's significance is not clear. Unless additional references are added demonstrating notability of this broadcaster, I'm not seeing notability here.--Rtphokie (talk) 21:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• Delete As Rtphokie says (BTW I assume you mean "I'm seeing non-notability""), the two references given are not enough to assert notability. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 13:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as bove. Insufficient assertion of notability. Eusebeus (talk) 21:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

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.