Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Bush

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:09, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Bush[edit]

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

The only sources cited are some articles he's written, his social media pages, and a press release saying he'd been hired. No reliable sources to back up why this person is notable. Werónika (talk) 04:23, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A fairly prominent political commentator - needs work but not deletion (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:07, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree 100%, the article needs "some" work but should be retained. (talk) Quetzal1964 15:04, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree 100% also: article thin in current state, but individual is notable. (talk) Da-rb 02:19, 04 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notability should be demonstrated, not simply remarked upon.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 02:56, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:19, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:35, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:25, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, for the reasons given by the nominator. Wikipedia isn't a directory of magazine journalists. Admittedly Bush is featured in a few paragraphs of an article in The Guardian but, as far as coverage goes about him, I can't see anything else. Failes WP:GNG.

P.S. I'm wondering whether the 3 !votes above are by the same person, particularly the almost identical phrasing and formatting! Sionk (talk) 16:24, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well I only voted once. Quetzal1964 14:45, 16 April 2017 (UTC) (talk)

Keep, ‎The work of Quetzal1964 this afternoon demonstrates that should Stephen Bush's article be deleted, it will probably need to be recreated in the not too distant future. Philip Cross (talk) 17:16, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how Quetzal's additions have improved anything. One source is from Bush's employer, The Spectator. The other is cited to Bush's own cookery article. Neither are independent. Sionk (talk) 19:12, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Bush is employed by the New Statesman, a left of centre political weekly, The Spectator is a right of centre political magazine which I don't think he has worked for. Quetzal1964 19:56, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I stand corrected. But one line in a blog article doesn't change things greatly. Sionk (talk) 23:54, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm my own person. I think Philip Cross might have hit the nail on the head in saying it'll be recreated: while Wikipedia isn't a directory of magazine journalists, he's "special correspondant" for the New Statesman, the main left of centre weekly in the UK and seems to write circa 7-10 articles weekly for the online (link: http://www.newstatesman.com/writers/stephen_bush) and 1-2 articles for the press edition; hosts the podcast, and for a UK political journalist has a large-ish following on Twitter: in UK political journalism, he's relatively the same prominence in the UK as Helen Lewis (journalist) and is either going to go the way of Mehdi Hasan or Laurie Penny or fade into obscurity. He's not a WP:BIO1E type thing: just several very moderately notable ones in a niche area. Da-rb (talk) 22:26, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which was a way of me saying Keep, by the way. Da-rb (talk) 22:29, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's what journalists do for their job, they write news/opinion articles. It's not a qualifying crieria for WP:GNG. There seem to be lots of soothsayers here, predicting this journalist is going to be notable in the future. But it clearly implies he isn't at the moment. Sionk (talk) 00:02, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, because Wikipedia is not a directory and the subject does not meet general notability guidelines. There is a difference between a journalist and say, Christopher Hitchens. --Rhombus (talk) 12:53, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because he is notable, not in the same league as Mr Hitchens but still is reasonably well known in the UK as a political journalist who is likely to have a long career. In any case there are now enough independent sources cited to establish notability (BBC, The Guardian, Huffington Post, The Spectator) so does meet notability guidelines. Quetzal1964 14:44, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable, despite sock puppetry claim to the contrary. Ifnord (talk) 17:28, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete may well merely be WP:TOOSOON, may even be true that there will soon be enough significant, non-primary sources to support an article. At present, there are not.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:46, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the reasons above, and will probably throw in relevance of peers George Eaton and Helen Lewis as they're of equal status (or not so as this case may be); but would probably agree with E.M.Gregory for WP:TOOSOON being cited as a good reason, rather than straight up non-notable. Da-rb (talk) 10:48, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Also: naiveity on my part: as this is the first one of these I've been involved in. This as been relisted a few times now, and is probably under the wrong category now (Author related, rather than journalism related). When does this get decided upon? Da-rb (talk) 10:48, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Da-rb Editors are free, encouraged actually, to add appropriate categories. If you scroll up, you'll see that this is already listed under journalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by E.M.Gregory (talk • contribs) 11:00, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin - User:Da-rb has now 'voted' three times. Sionk (talk) 21:39, 25 April 2017 (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.