- 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. I have ignored most of the bickering between UK Wiki User (possibly a sock) and the different IPs (possibly the subject himself). Randykitty ( talk) 16:33, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}}; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}}. |
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Chris Berrow ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
possibly non-notable media person. Couldn't find much on search -- a TON of listings in various listing sites, must have been an super organized search to find all of them, not sure I've seen most of them before. A lot of mentions in affiliate sites, a couple of mentions as the interviewer of other people. SPA creator and almost all edits by a series of IPs. ETA: Article history seems to show an AfD nom/removal of AfD notice edit war among IPs. valereee ( talk) 15:28, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 15:50, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 15:50, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 15:50, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 15:50, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment. A discussion
here has been taking place at AfD Talk which may be of interest here.
Acabashi (
talk)
16:44, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Acabashi, that's how I got to the article and ended up checking for sources -- valereee ( talk) 16:47, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete [this reassessment based on all sources offered, those subsequently found, and assessed on how these apply to relevant
WP notability protocol.
Acabashi (
talk)
20:28, 31 March 2019 (UTC)]
Qualified delete. Berrow has his own show, 'Weekend Fun' on Saturdays from 9am on Radio Lincolnshire. He does 'sit in' broadcasts on BBC Local Radio stations: chiefly for Northants and Essex, and occasionally for Nottingham, Oxford, York, and Cambridge. He has broadcast for 'BBC Local Radio' (could this be simulcast?). He, with a team, did 5 live's Science Podcast, 5 live's Science: The Future of Car Travel, and 5 live's Science: Biosecurity: see here. He has a Twitter, LinkedIn and web site [1], [2], [3], [4]... I've been told that stuff put on these accounts by that particular person is somewhat viable and allowable, see here. This may or may not be true but it's all self-referencing of course. As yet I can find nothing independently cited about Radio 3, Radio 4 Extra and World Service, and nothing on him being a musician.
If the unsupported text is removed, we will be left with a one line stub. On balance, therefore, my view is to delete, although I should think there are other such BLPs that have less to offer that have been kept... not a good argument I know. There is a paucity of independent reliable sources for Berrow. My worry is that I know a load of unsourced trivia will ride in on the back of this underwhelming article if kept... again not a good argument for delete. Acabashi ( talk) 12:32, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- Update: a BBC IP, stating that they are Chris Berrow, has provided links that they feel might be helpful: [5], [6], [7], (towards the bottom), p 119, [8], [9], [10]. Acabashi ( talk) 11:45, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- (Posted in the other talk page) Chris, I'm sorry if this sounds rude, but there are so many people on Wiki who self-promote themselves. It does also seem strange how all the edits came from a BBC IP address and now you're editing this post from an IP address associated with the BBC. With all due respect, the links you provided above still puts the article in question. Many "minor" broadcasters appear in the Radio Times but they don't have articles as they're not notable enough. Similarly, a lot of community, uni and hospital radio stations attempt to break records but again, not all of them are included here? The link you provided for covering Johnny I'Anson is also not available, but again, many presenters have covered what you refer to as the "All-England Show". Upon doing research, bigger names have covered the show who don't have articles. I'm sure valereee ( talk) and Acabashi ( talk) will agree that there's still nothing to go by with what you have provided and the article is still in question. UK Wiki User ( talk) 09:05, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- UPDATE: The majority of people included in one of the links posted by "Chris" don't have articles, some of which probably warrant an article more than Chris?
UK Wiki User (
talk)
11:51, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- @ UK Wiki User: (copy from AfD Talk). It's not wise to try to co-opt other users to a point of view in discussions. I have added my tuppence here, and will look at the links the BBC IP address provided, and modify, or not, my personal judgement. Acabashi ( talk) 12:00, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- UK Wiki User, a word of advice: this is starting to feel personal. That will absolutely backfire on you. I'd advise you to stop commenting and let the process take its course. -- valereee ( talk) 12:23, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- I can understand why you think this is starting to feel personal, but I can honestly say it's not. Please advise how long this process takes as I feel nobody's getting anywhere fast. We are all entitled to our opinions.
UK Wiki User (
talk)
13:25, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- AFD discussions usually last 1 week (so 5 more days from now), but can last longer if necessary to establish a consensus. Iffy★ Chat -- 13:51, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete. Radio personalities are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, or just because they have social networking profiles — the notability test is the reception of reliable source coverage about them in sources other than their own employer. The sources shown above simply are not good enough: most of them are primary sources, not reliable or notability-supporting ones, and the very few that are reliable sources just glancingly namecheck his existence in the process of being about something other than him. This is not the kind of sourcing it takes to make a radio personality notable. And at any rate, it's not Chris Berrow's prerogative to personally decide for himself that he gets to have a Wikipedia article — our inclusion standards and our rules about sourcing decide whether he gets a Wikipedia article or not, not his own. This is an encyclopedia, not LinkedIn; we are not a site on which people are entitled to place themselves for publicity. Bearcat ( talk) 17:50, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Seems a bit of an "aggressive" and "personal" comment with an "excessive" use of quotations! I didn't make this Wikipedia page, and I certainly didn't add the Radio 3 and Radio 4 Extra information, if you look at the edit history most of the info was added by other people. I am only getting involved now after someone decided they wanted it deleted. Are you that same person? The name checks in the sources above are on a par with other continuity announcers that are deemed to be notable enough to have articles... and I don't really see how a link to my old student radio show is giving me any particular publicity. No one is going to say "ooh I better employ him for voiceover work because he used to present on student radio"? Chris Berrow — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.185.161.131 ( talk) 22:00, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- May I just add, considering you (Chris) said you weren't the one who made the edits and added info, the IP you have used to make this comment indicates it's the same IP that made many of the changes. UK Wiki User ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:31, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Ah it's the person with a personal vendetta - the BBC computers have similar IP addresses, I would venture that a colleague from Radio 3 or 4 Extra may have deemed that information to be pertinent, whereas from your activity and IP address, (and recent account creation alongside your comments above) suggest that you deleted many of the citations on the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:C626:AE00:61CE:9655:F9BD:DD86 ( talk) 15:17, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not getting involved in a battle with you. No, it wasn't me who deleted the citations. You say you're not a Wiki user, you seem to know quite a lot of the Wiki terms. I signed up as I wanted to give my contributions to the discussions. Are you saying other people in the BBC were editing your WIki article in the early hours moments after you were tweeting at the same time? (See comment on talk page). UK Wiki User ( talk) 15:25, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Bit stalkerish? No I'm saying that the information and citations added after the article in the Radio Times were added by someone else, possibly colleagues... I have no idea. Many of which were deleted before this article was itself put up for deletion by a user with a clear personal issue, which you also seem to have - hence the paucity of sources. There are comments saying "no independently verifiable information about work on the World Service or Radio 3" from you. And yet if you really were a regular listener you would have heard some of the WS bulletins yesterday https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/w172w4f9ypsrd2v or Radio 3 newsreading last week https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0003dn6 - perhaps you aren't as regular a listener as you say? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.185.158.37 ( talk) 21:46, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- I do have a life so not listening 24/7. For information, I switch between local radio and Radio 3, Radio 4 and World Service. I don’t have a personal issue as I haven’t a clue who you are. As I said, let this run it’s course and stop being so precious over a self promoting article ‘eh? UK Wiki User ( talk) 21:56, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- UPDATE: The IP address you just used to comment has previously been used to edit your article. Interesting! UK Wiki User ( talk) 21:59, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
This is just an unusual article to pick to have such a massive issue with if you "do have a life". If you listen to any of those stations then you will have a clue who I am :) try the links above to catch up if you've missed anything — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.185.160.130 ( talk) 03:55, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- I don’t listen 24/7 and nor do I wish to listen back. You need to stop getting on your high horse about an article that many have said isn’t notable enough. Let the admins do their thing. Once again, commenting in the early hours from an IP that made several of the edits before. UK Wiki User ( talk) 06:55, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty ( talk) 16:31, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
I don’t know how many people are involved in this discussion but it’s sad if people are picking on one individual just because of his entry. If Chris is updating the page himself, so what. Whether there are references or not, he’s on the radio which surely is good enough for a Wikipedia article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.231.155 ( talk) 16:48, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- No, the fact of being on the radio is not automatically good enough for a Wikipedia article. The notability test for inclusion in Wikipedia is not whether a person verifies as existing — that would basically get almost every person who exists at all into Wikipedia, because almost everybody is on Facebook or Twitter or LinkedIn or YouTube now. The notability test, the question of whether a person qualifies to have an article on here or not, hinges on the depth and volume and range of media coverage the person has or hasn't received for their work, and not on what the person (or their employer) self-publishes about themselves. Bearcat ( talk) 17:17, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Is there not significant coverage in the media by being on Radio 3, Radio 4 Extra and World Service? As well as multiple local radio stations? Also these sources are primarily about Chris, not just passing mentions: https://www.pri.org/stories/2014-03-03/twitch-plays-pokemon-million-people-played-one-character-16-day-videogame https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-26373516 https://www.healthcarehomes.co.uk/2015/03/bbc-radio-cambridgeshire-talks-poetry-to-healthcare-homes/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:4C8:102E:22F1:F8E7:28FF:F46E:7B20 ( talk) 00:02, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- Are you being serious? So you think - not you Bearcat - that just because someone is on the radio they deserve an article? After looking at the edits, IP addresses and links posted, I, personally, believe this is self-promotion. UK Wiki User ( talk) 17:39, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
But surely the BBC website counts as a trustworthy source? You can't discredit that... that's like not referencing Match of the Day for Gary Linekar... because that's his employer! What promotion is being gained? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.185.160.125 ( talk) 19:37, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- The BBC website can count as a source for content, however as a primary source it cannot count towards proving notability for inclusion. Meszzy2 ( talk) 20:11, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- The BBC website verifies that the fact is true. It does not constitute evidence that he's notable for the fact, because every radio personality who exists at all can always "cite" a staff profile on the website of their own employer. Notability on Wikipedia derives from sources that don't have a vested interest in the subject's career choosing to devote their editorial resources to producing journalism about the subject, not from the existence of staff profiles published by the person's own employer. And no, Gary Lineker's article isn't using the existence of a staff profile on Match of the Day's own website as his evidence of notability — his article cites 65 distinct footnotes, many of which actually represent exactly what I just told you we require: real journalism about him in media outlets he isn't directly employed by. Bearcat ( talk) 20:39, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Much of this journalism is broadcast on the radio and cannot be cited by Wikipedia without linking to every single episode page... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:4C8:102E:22F1:F8E7:28FF:F46E:7B20 ( talk) 00:11, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- OK, answer this. Are there any programmes about YOU? Have you done something to warrant a page? What makes you think you should have a Wiki article justy because you’re on the radio? Be honest, I’m curious to know. 82.17.229.192 ( talk) 06:36, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
That's like saying are there any programmes ABOUT Simon Mayo... no, he's an interviewer, and yet he warrants inclusion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.185.160.130 ( talk) 21:51, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - The debate going on here seems to be more about who edited what and who listens to the radio station or not rather than whether or not the article meets wikipedia's policies on notability for inclusion, which is what this discussion is supposed to be about. It however does not seem to meet those policies. According to WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, "people are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." First, the article has one source, which is primary and according to WP:BASIC primary sources "do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject." Now, earlier up in this discussion you can find links to 8 sources provided by Chris, however of the provided sources that are secondary, none actually have Chris as their subject, he is just trivially mentioned in them, and our policy on notability for people is quite clear in stating that trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. Notability is not determined if you can get a name in an article written about something else, but rather if you are notable enough in the real world that independent sources will write about you. If we want to get more specific in terms of notability as a radio show host, we can check our policy WP:ENT and see again that this article fails it. Thus it is clear to be that this article does not meet our notability guidelines for inclusion and so I am in favour of deletion. Meszzy2 ( talk) 20:08, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Why don't you look at some of the sources that were originally deleted before the article was left with only one remaining source?
- This is hilarious, it goes to show it’s self-promotion if you’re getting your knickers in a twist. Looking at the history, no - the references aren’t good enough. 82.17.228.1 ( talk) 06:31, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
I've come across a number of Wiki articles today of people who have articles who don't have sufficient information to warrant the page. No wonder why Chris thinks it's OK for him to automatically think he deserves an account. These will be mentioned on their individual pages and flagged. 132.185.160.127 ( talk) 16:15, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Chris is a good broadcaster and if you're on Radio 4, you're classed as on-air talent. Why are we even having this debate if Radio 4 and World Service are national stations? They don't just put anyone on Radio 4. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.185.160.122 ( talk) 08:50, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- Our notability standards don't have anything to do with whether the subject is "talented" or not — everybody who exists at all can claim to be talented at something, so if all somebody had to do to be on Wikipedia was to have talent we'd have to keep an article about every single person on earth. Our notability standards depend on the reception of
reliable source media coverage about the person's achievements, not on what they or their employer say about themselves.
Bearcat (
talk)
16:32, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- That’s not very reasonable as his name is all over the BBC Schedule page. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
82.17.228.1 (
talk)
16:54, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- It's entirely reasonable. The notability test is never just that the person's existence can be verified in
primary sources, like staff profiles on the websites of their own employers or social media accounts — inclusion on Wikipedia depends on unaffiliated sources choosing to devote their editorial resources to produce journalistic content about the person and their work. If all a person had to do to qualify for inclusion here was to have a staff profile on their own employer's website or a self-published website about themselves or a social media account, we'd have to keep an article about every single person who exists at all.
Bearcat (
talk)
17:12, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- Adding onto Bearcats answer to provide additional insight as to why we have such a policy, we require secondary sources because independent journalistic content written about a subject shows that there is public interest in knowing about and getting information about that subject. A primary source is not a sign of any public interest as its usually produced by the subject or their employer. For example, if you take some employee from a fairly large company, they may have a staff profile on the companies website with lots of information, but it doesn't mean that person is notable enough for a page on Wikipedia. Now, if that employee goes on to commit some big international crime, and gets written about in the news, news companies commit editorial resources as they know there is public interest in that employee and the public is actually interested in reading about them. This would thus prove public interest for a Wikipedia article. Meszzy2 ( talk) 18:29, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- It's entirely reasonable. The notability test is never just that the person's existence can be verified in
primary sources, like staff profiles on the websites of their own employers or social media accounts — inclusion on Wikipedia depends on unaffiliated sources choosing to devote their editorial resources to produce journalistic content about the person and their work. If all a person had to do to qualify for inclusion here was to have a staff profile on their own employer's website or a self-published website about themselves or a social media account, we'd have to keep an article about every single person who exists at all.
Bearcat (
talk)
17:12, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- That’s not very reasonable as his name is all over the BBC Schedule page. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
82.17.228.1 (
talk)
16:54, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- Agree. Just because I exist and work in property and deal with some well known people, so I qualify? No! So many radio presenters and broadcasters on here automatically think they qualify just because of their job. What has Chris done that means he can have a page? None of what he provided was notable! UK Wiki User ( talk) 17:26, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- UK Wiki User, to make it easier for other editors to tell which previous comment you're replying to, you can insert at the beginning of your post one colon more than the comment to which you're replying. In the above comment, it looks like you're agreeing with the "Chris is a good broadcaster" comment, which I don't think is what you've intended. If you click on 'edit source' you'll be able to see that I've started with two colons because I'm replying to your comment that started with a single colon, thereby indenting my comment one more space than your comment and showing others which comment I'm replying to. -- valereee ( talk) 19:22, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
With respect - working in property is not something that is broadcast to the nation... if millions of people were listening to you deal with well known people then yes, you probably would warrant a page. But you don't. Phil Spencer who co-hosts Location Location Location has a page /info/en/?search=Phil_Spencer and all of his references aren't anything to do with independent articles written about him. He references his own book, and the channel 4 website. And yet his is notable because he presents a show. Surely Chris is the same? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.185.160.130 ( talk) 21:55, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- No, as mentioned many times above, having a show that many people listen to and watch is not enough to warrant a page. We have extremely clear policies on the criteria for inclusion, which you can see at WP:BASIC. For a person to be notable enough for inclusion, they must have independent secondary sources, as this is an indicator of public interest thus proving notability. In your example Phil Spencer, there are independent secondary sources, for example reference #5 from the Telegraph about him. A popular show means a show is popular, it means nothing in terms of notability of the show's host. Often times a show will become big enough, people will become interested in the show's host and then secondary sources are created. A complete lack of secondary sources show that an individual is simply not notable for any news organization to write about them, and thus are not notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. Meszzy2 ( talk) 09:06, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
So is Phil going to be listed for deletion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.185.158.36 ( talk) 13:39, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- How much longer will this go on?! This has been going over over 7 days. When will a decision be reached? — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
109.151.34.33 (
talk)
13:31, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
- It was relisted on March 27th, so a decision won't be reached until April 3rd. Meszzy2 ( talk) 22:07, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
- It’s pathetic really, I don’t see the problem. Chris on a national radio station so should have an article. Chris has provided several links which are notable. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
109.151.34.33 (
talk)
22:34, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
- No, being on a radio station does not mean someone should have an article. A person must be notable to the public to have an article. Wikipedia determines notability by the presence of secondary sources. There seems to be no secondary sources about Chris, meaning he is not notable and fails our criteria for inclusion. Meszzy2 ( talk) 01:19, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- How much longer will this go on?! This has been going over over 7 days. When will a decision be reached? — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
109.151.34.33 (
talk)
13:31, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
Haven't you looked at any of the many secondary sources provided above? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.185.158.36 ( talk) 13:37, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- Chris why have you re-added all your information again when you’ve been told this isn’t sufficient enough? It’ll be deleted again!
109.151.34.33 (
talk)
16:35, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- You only get a name check in the links, nothing about you at all. Tell me, why do you think you’re special enough to have an article? Clearly you have it ready to copy and paste. You best create a wiki article for the other people in the articles you provided pronto. They obviously deserve one too. Especially the paramedic! Not that the link has anything to do with radio, apart from a “mention” of you working Christmas Day. 109.151.34.33 ( talk) 16:38, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- The comment above “So, is phil going to be considered for deletion”. No, because he’s more notable than Chris. I think this comment proves it’s chris getting on his high horse, jealous possibly? — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
82.132.214.76 (
talk)
19:28, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- I addressed all the sources listed above in my original deletion statement. Phil's article has secondary sources about him, thus he meets our notability criteria.
Meszzy2 (
talk)
21:34, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- I addressed all the sources listed above in my original deletion statement. Phil's article has secondary sources about him, thus he meets our notability criteria.
Meszzy2 (
talk)
21:34, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- Chris why have you re-added all your information again when you’ve been told this isn’t sufficient enough? It’ll be deleted again!
109.151.34.33 (
talk)
16:35, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Comment. All the (IP) blog-style personal sparring in this 'discussion' will not make a blind bit of difference whether or not the article is deleted. And whether or not other articles fail or do not fail notability matters not a jot for the decision on this particular article. That is the bare truth of the matter. If anyone feels this article might fulfill Wikipedia requirements, you have first to consult WP:BASIC and WP:GNG and explain, under a bulleted section headed with a bolded Keep, how the sources offered for the article comply with these Wikipedia criteria. Nothing else is relevant or important. Thanks. Acabashi ( talk) 22:20, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep BBC article shows a good amount of coverage, coupled with numerous listings on BBC Schedules. 5 Live Science and documentary links are also significant. Some secondary sources including the Independent article and BBC Introducing article seem to supplement the main information - "multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". Some information is independent and verifiable (Independent article). With reference to "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity — although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject that meets the guidelines." The profile of Radio 3, 4 Extra and World Service enhance the acceptability of the person for inclusion. Also "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." so the Independent article is valid. Father NN but could be considered for inclusion based on the volume of entries on IMDB. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.185.160.125 ( talk) 19:12, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Staff profiles on the self-published websites of a person's own employer do not "enhance the acceptability of the person for inclusion", and neither do sources in which a person is simply quoted as a giver of soundbite in an article about another subject. A source must be fully independent of him, not self-created by himself or his employers, to support notability — and while he doesn't have to be the sole subject of a source, the source does have to be to at least some extent about him, which is not the same thing as "featuring him giving soundbite in an article whose subject is something else entirely". He has to be the thing that is being discussed, not a person speaking in a discussion about something else, to be the "subject" of a source. All of this has already been explained above — and trust me that anonymous IPs who think they know our rules better than the people who actually contribute here on a regular basis are not taken seriously.
Bearcat (
talk)
20:17, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- The reference to Radio 3, 4 Extra and WS have nothing to do with any staff profiles, merely a statement of fact that Chris broadcasts on those stations. Many of the sources (Independent article, PRI article, Introducing article) are to "some extent" about him. Maybe take it easy on the quotation marks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.185.160.125 ( talk) 21:02, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Staff profiles on the self-published websites of a person's own employer do not "enhance the acceptability of the person for inclusion", and neither do sources in which a person is simply quoted as a giver of soundbite in an article about another subject. A source must be fully independent of him, not self-created by himself or his employers, to support notability — and while he doesn't have to be the sole subject of a source, the source does have to be to at least some extent about him, which is not the same thing as "featuring him giving soundbite in an article whose subject is something else entirely". He has to be the thing that is being discussed, not a person speaking in a discussion about something else, to be the "subject" of a source. All of this has already been explained above — and trust me that anonymous IPs who think they know our rules better than the people who actually contribute here on a regular basis are not taken seriously.
Bearcat (
talk)
20:17, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Good lord, look at the contribution before your reply Bearcat. Lots of the previous edits have been done by that IP. Chris perhaps? When will a decision be reached? There’s no room for self promotion here! 82.132.233.126 ( talk) 20:52, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Chris, you’re now even tweeting about this discussion. Proves it’s you. Oh, and you’re a gamer now? That link seems a bit self promotion too. Still not suitable. PATHETIC and self promotion. Loving Bearcat’s quotation marks. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
82.132.233.126 (
talk)
21:05, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Per the above: do not comment on other's contributions in the way you have with Bearcat's above, which gives the impression of an attempt to co-opt a user. Keep strictly to the article, and whether or not it complies with WP:BASIC and WP:GNG. Thanks. Acabashi ( talk) 02:59, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- Chris, you’re now even tweeting about this discussion. Proves it’s you. Oh, and you’re a gamer now? That link seems a bit self promotion too. Still not suitable. PATHETIC and self promotion. Loving Bearcat’s quotation marks. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
82.132.233.126 (
talk)
21:05, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Comment. I have copyedited the article so the text only reflects the sources offered, with no judgement as to whether or not the text or refs are significant or trivia, so that others can better evaluate what the article amounts to. Acabashi ( talk) 03:11, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Seems to be a link to the Radio Times article here? https://twitter.com/DJChrisBerrow/status/920306899739955200 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.185.158.36 ( talk) 06:24, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- Still not good enough. They do this feature once a week, and the others don’t have articles. What makes you so special? 82.132.234.209 ( talk) 08:12, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Would like to just remind folks that is a discussion about whether or not this article is appropriate for deletion, and not about Chris Berrow himself or other editors. Please note that civility ( WP:CIVIL) is an official Wikipedia policy - which to me doesn't seem to be fully followed here right now. Meszzy2 ( talk) 16:19, 4 April 2019 (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.
- 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. I have ignored most of the bickering between UK Wiki User (possibly a sock) and the different IPs (possibly the subject himself). Randykitty ( talk) 16:33, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
|
| If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}}; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}}. |
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Chris Berrow ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
possibly non-notable media person. Couldn't find much on search -- a TON of listings in various listing sites, must have been an super organized search to find all of them, not sure I've seen most of them before. A lot of mentions in affiliate sites, a couple of mentions as the interviewer of other people. SPA creator and almost all edits by a series of IPs. ETA: Article history seems to show an AfD nom/removal of AfD notice edit war among IPs. valereee ( talk) 15:28, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 15:50, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 15:50, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 15:50, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 15:50, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment. A discussion
here has been taking place at AfD Talk which may be of interest here.
Acabashi (
talk)
16:44, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Acabashi, that's how I got to the article and ended up checking for sources -- valereee ( talk) 16:47, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete [this reassessment based on all sources offered, those subsequently found, and assessed on how these apply to relevant
WP notability protocol.
Acabashi (
talk)
20:28, 31 March 2019 (UTC)]
Qualified delete. Berrow has his own show, 'Weekend Fun' on Saturdays from 9am on Radio Lincolnshire. He does 'sit in' broadcasts on BBC Local Radio stations: chiefly for Northants and Essex, and occasionally for Nottingham, Oxford, York, and Cambridge. He has broadcast for 'BBC Local Radio' (could this be simulcast?). He, with a team, did 5 live's Science Podcast, 5 live's Science: The Future of Car Travel, and 5 live's Science: Biosecurity: see here. He has a Twitter, LinkedIn and web site [1], [2], [3], [4]... I've been told that stuff put on these accounts by that particular person is somewhat viable and allowable, see here. This may or may not be true but it's all self-referencing of course. As yet I can find nothing independently cited about Radio 3, Radio 4 Extra and World Service, and nothing on him being a musician.
If the unsupported text is removed, we will be left with a one line stub. On balance, therefore, my view is to delete, although I should think there are other such BLPs that have less to offer that have been kept... not a good argument I know. There is a paucity of independent reliable sources for Berrow. My worry is that I know a load of unsourced trivia will ride in on the back of this underwhelming article if kept... again not a good argument for delete. Acabashi ( talk) 12:32, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- Update: a BBC IP, stating that they are Chris Berrow, has provided links that they feel might be helpful: [5], [6], [7], (towards the bottom), p 119, [8], [9], [10]. Acabashi ( talk) 11:45, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- (Posted in the other talk page) Chris, I'm sorry if this sounds rude, but there are so many people on Wiki who self-promote themselves. It does also seem strange how all the edits came from a BBC IP address and now you're editing this post from an IP address associated with the BBC. With all due respect, the links you provided above still puts the article in question. Many "minor" broadcasters appear in the Radio Times but they don't have articles as they're not notable enough. Similarly, a lot of community, uni and hospital radio stations attempt to break records but again, not all of them are included here? The link you provided for covering Johnny I'Anson is also not available, but again, many presenters have covered what you refer to as the "All-England Show". Upon doing research, bigger names have covered the show who don't have articles. I'm sure valereee ( talk) and Acabashi ( talk) will agree that there's still nothing to go by with what you have provided and the article is still in question. UK Wiki User ( talk) 09:05, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- UPDATE: The majority of people included in one of the links posted by "Chris" don't have articles, some of which probably warrant an article more than Chris?
UK Wiki User (
talk)
11:51, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- @ UK Wiki User: (copy from AfD Talk). It's not wise to try to co-opt other users to a point of view in discussions. I have added my tuppence here, and will look at the links the BBC IP address provided, and modify, or not, my personal judgement. Acabashi ( talk) 12:00, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- UK Wiki User, a word of advice: this is starting to feel personal. That will absolutely backfire on you. I'd advise you to stop commenting and let the process take its course. -- valereee ( talk) 12:23, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- I can understand why you think this is starting to feel personal, but I can honestly say it's not. Please advise how long this process takes as I feel nobody's getting anywhere fast. We are all entitled to our opinions.
UK Wiki User (
talk)
13:25, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- AFD discussions usually last 1 week (so 5 more days from now), but can last longer if necessary to establish a consensus. Iffy★ Chat -- 13:51, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete. Radio personalities are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, or just because they have social networking profiles — the notability test is the reception of reliable source coverage about them in sources other than their own employer. The sources shown above simply are not good enough: most of them are primary sources, not reliable or notability-supporting ones, and the very few that are reliable sources just glancingly namecheck his existence in the process of being about something other than him. This is not the kind of sourcing it takes to make a radio personality notable. And at any rate, it's not Chris Berrow's prerogative to personally decide for himself that he gets to have a Wikipedia article — our inclusion standards and our rules about sourcing decide whether he gets a Wikipedia article or not, not his own. This is an encyclopedia, not LinkedIn; we are not a site on which people are entitled to place themselves for publicity. Bearcat ( talk) 17:50, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Seems a bit of an "aggressive" and "personal" comment with an "excessive" use of quotations! I didn't make this Wikipedia page, and I certainly didn't add the Radio 3 and Radio 4 Extra information, if you look at the edit history most of the info was added by other people. I am only getting involved now after someone decided they wanted it deleted. Are you that same person? The name checks in the sources above are on a par with other continuity announcers that are deemed to be notable enough to have articles... and I don't really see how a link to my old student radio show is giving me any particular publicity. No one is going to say "ooh I better employ him for voiceover work because he used to present on student radio"? Chris Berrow — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.185.161.131 ( talk) 22:00, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- May I just add, considering you (Chris) said you weren't the one who made the edits and added info, the IP you have used to make this comment indicates it's the same IP that made many of the changes. UK Wiki User ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:31, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Ah it's the person with a personal vendetta - the BBC computers have similar IP addresses, I would venture that a colleague from Radio 3 or 4 Extra may have deemed that information to be pertinent, whereas from your activity and IP address, (and recent account creation alongside your comments above) suggest that you deleted many of the citations on the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:C626:AE00:61CE:9655:F9BD:DD86 ( talk) 15:17, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not getting involved in a battle with you. No, it wasn't me who deleted the citations. You say you're not a Wiki user, you seem to know quite a lot of the Wiki terms. I signed up as I wanted to give my contributions to the discussions. Are you saying other people in the BBC were editing your WIki article in the early hours moments after you were tweeting at the same time? (See comment on talk page). UK Wiki User ( talk) 15:25, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Bit stalkerish? No I'm saying that the information and citations added after the article in the Radio Times were added by someone else, possibly colleagues... I have no idea. Many of which were deleted before this article was itself put up for deletion by a user with a clear personal issue, which you also seem to have - hence the paucity of sources. There are comments saying "no independently verifiable information about work on the World Service or Radio 3" from you. And yet if you really were a regular listener you would have heard some of the WS bulletins yesterday https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/w172w4f9ypsrd2v or Radio 3 newsreading last week https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0003dn6 - perhaps you aren't as regular a listener as you say? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.185.158.37 ( talk) 21:46, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- I do have a life so not listening 24/7. For information, I switch between local radio and Radio 3, Radio 4 and World Service. I don’t have a personal issue as I haven’t a clue who you are. As I said, let this run it’s course and stop being so precious over a self promoting article ‘eh? UK Wiki User ( talk) 21:56, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- UPDATE: The IP address you just used to comment has previously been used to edit your article. Interesting! UK Wiki User ( talk) 21:59, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
This is just an unusual article to pick to have such a massive issue with if you "do have a life". If you listen to any of those stations then you will have a clue who I am :) try the links above to catch up if you've missed anything — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.185.160.130 ( talk) 03:55, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- I don’t listen 24/7 and nor do I wish to listen back. You need to stop getting on your high horse about an article that many have said isn’t notable enough. Let the admins do their thing. Once again, commenting in the early hours from an IP that made several of the edits before. UK Wiki User ( talk) 06:55, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty ( talk) 16:31, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
I don’t know how many people are involved in this discussion but it’s sad if people are picking on one individual just because of his entry. If Chris is updating the page himself, so what. Whether there are references or not, he’s on the radio which surely is good enough for a Wikipedia article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.231.155 ( talk) 16:48, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- No, the fact of being on the radio is not automatically good enough for a Wikipedia article. The notability test for inclusion in Wikipedia is not whether a person verifies as existing — that would basically get almost every person who exists at all into Wikipedia, because almost everybody is on Facebook or Twitter or LinkedIn or YouTube now. The notability test, the question of whether a person qualifies to have an article on here or not, hinges on the depth and volume and range of media coverage the person has or hasn't received for their work, and not on what the person (or their employer) self-publishes about themselves. Bearcat ( talk) 17:17, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Is there not significant coverage in the media by being on Radio 3, Radio 4 Extra and World Service? As well as multiple local radio stations? Also these sources are primarily about Chris, not just passing mentions: https://www.pri.org/stories/2014-03-03/twitch-plays-pokemon-million-people-played-one-character-16-day-videogame https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-26373516 https://www.healthcarehomes.co.uk/2015/03/bbc-radio-cambridgeshire-talks-poetry-to-healthcare-homes/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:4C8:102E:22F1:F8E7:28FF:F46E:7B20 ( talk) 00:02, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- Are you being serious? So you think - not you Bearcat - that just because someone is on the radio they deserve an article? After looking at the edits, IP addresses and links posted, I, personally, believe this is self-promotion. UK Wiki User ( talk) 17:39, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
But surely the BBC website counts as a trustworthy source? You can't discredit that... that's like not referencing Match of the Day for Gary Linekar... because that's his employer! What promotion is being gained? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.185.160.125 ( talk) 19:37, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- The BBC website can count as a source for content, however as a primary source it cannot count towards proving notability for inclusion. Meszzy2 ( talk) 20:11, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- The BBC website verifies that the fact is true. It does not constitute evidence that he's notable for the fact, because every radio personality who exists at all can always "cite" a staff profile on the website of their own employer. Notability on Wikipedia derives from sources that don't have a vested interest in the subject's career choosing to devote their editorial resources to producing journalism about the subject, not from the existence of staff profiles published by the person's own employer. And no, Gary Lineker's article isn't using the existence of a staff profile on Match of the Day's own website as his evidence of notability — his article cites 65 distinct footnotes, many of which actually represent exactly what I just told you we require: real journalism about him in media outlets he isn't directly employed by. Bearcat ( talk) 20:39, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Much of this journalism is broadcast on the radio and cannot be cited by Wikipedia without linking to every single episode page... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:4C8:102E:22F1:F8E7:28FF:F46E:7B20 ( talk) 00:11, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- OK, answer this. Are there any programmes about YOU? Have you done something to warrant a page? What makes you think you should have a Wiki article justy because you’re on the radio? Be honest, I’m curious to know. 82.17.229.192 ( talk) 06:36, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
That's like saying are there any programmes ABOUT Simon Mayo... no, he's an interviewer, and yet he warrants inclusion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.185.160.130 ( talk) 21:51, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - The debate going on here seems to be more about who edited what and who listens to the radio station or not rather than whether or not the article meets wikipedia's policies on notability for inclusion, which is what this discussion is supposed to be about. It however does not seem to meet those policies. According to WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, "people are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." First, the article has one source, which is primary and according to WP:BASIC primary sources "do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject." Now, earlier up in this discussion you can find links to 8 sources provided by Chris, however of the provided sources that are secondary, none actually have Chris as their subject, he is just trivially mentioned in them, and our policy on notability for people is quite clear in stating that trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. Notability is not determined if you can get a name in an article written about something else, but rather if you are notable enough in the real world that independent sources will write about you. If we want to get more specific in terms of notability as a radio show host, we can check our policy WP:ENT and see again that this article fails it. Thus it is clear to be that this article does not meet our notability guidelines for inclusion and so I am in favour of deletion. Meszzy2 ( talk) 20:08, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Why don't you look at some of the sources that were originally deleted before the article was left with only one remaining source?
- This is hilarious, it goes to show it’s self-promotion if you’re getting your knickers in a twist. Looking at the history, no - the references aren’t good enough. 82.17.228.1 ( talk) 06:31, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
I've come across a number of Wiki articles today of people who have articles who don't have sufficient information to warrant the page. No wonder why Chris thinks it's OK for him to automatically think he deserves an account. These will be mentioned on their individual pages and flagged. 132.185.160.127 ( talk) 16:15, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Chris is a good broadcaster and if you're on Radio 4, you're classed as on-air talent. Why are we even having this debate if Radio 4 and World Service are national stations? They don't just put anyone on Radio 4. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.185.160.122 ( talk) 08:50, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- Our notability standards don't have anything to do with whether the subject is "talented" or not — everybody who exists at all can claim to be talented at something, so if all somebody had to do to be on Wikipedia was to have talent we'd have to keep an article about every single person on earth. Our notability standards depend on the reception of
reliable source media coverage about the person's achievements, not on what they or their employer say about themselves.
Bearcat (
talk)
16:32, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- That’s not very reasonable as his name is all over the BBC Schedule page. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
82.17.228.1 (
talk)
16:54, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- It's entirely reasonable. The notability test is never just that the person's existence can be verified in
primary sources, like staff profiles on the websites of their own employers or social media accounts — inclusion on Wikipedia depends on unaffiliated sources choosing to devote their editorial resources to produce journalistic content about the person and their work. If all a person had to do to qualify for inclusion here was to have a staff profile on their own employer's website or a self-published website about themselves or a social media account, we'd have to keep an article about every single person who exists at all.
Bearcat (
talk)
17:12, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- Adding onto Bearcats answer to provide additional insight as to why we have such a policy, we require secondary sources because independent journalistic content written about a subject shows that there is public interest in knowing about and getting information about that subject. A primary source is not a sign of any public interest as its usually produced by the subject or their employer. For example, if you take some employee from a fairly large company, they may have a staff profile on the companies website with lots of information, but it doesn't mean that person is notable enough for a page on Wikipedia. Now, if that employee goes on to commit some big international crime, and gets written about in the news, news companies commit editorial resources as they know there is public interest in that employee and the public is actually interested in reading about them. This would thus prove public interest for a Wikipedia article. Meszzy2 ( talk) 18:29, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- It's entirely reasonable. The notability test is never just that the person's existence can be verified in
primary sources, like staff profiles on the websites of their own employers or social media accounts — inclusion on Wikipedia depends on unaffiliated sources choosing to devote their editorial resources to produce journalistic content about the person and their work. If all a person had to do to qualify for inclusion here was to have a staff profile on their own employer's website or a self-published website about themselves or a social media account, we'd have to keep an article about every single person who exists at all.
Bearcat (
talk)
17:12, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- That’s not very reasonable as his name is all over the BBC Schedule page. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
82.17.228.1 (
talk)
16:54, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- Agree. Just because I exist and work in property and deal with some well known people, so I qualify? No! So many radio presenters and broadcasters on here automatically think they qualify just because of their job. What has Chris done that means he can have a page? None of what he provided was notable! UK Wiki User ( talk) 17:26, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- UK Wiki User, to make it easier for other editors to tell which previous comment you're replying to, you can insert at the beginning of your post one colon more than the comment to which you're replying. In the above comment, it looks like you're agreeing with the "Chris is a good broadcaster" comment, which I don't think is what you've intended. If you click on 'edit source' you'll be able to see that I've started with two colons because I'm replying to your comment that started with a single colon, thereby indenting my comment one more space than your comment and showing others which comment I'm replying to. -- valereee ( talk) 19:22, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
With respect - working in property is not something that is broadcast to the nation... if millions of people were listening to you deal with well known people then yes, you probably would warrant a page. But you don't. Phil Spencer who co-hosts Location Location Location has a page /info/en/?search=Phil_Spencer and all of his references aren't anything to do with independent articles written about him. He references his own book, and the channel 4 website. And yet his is notable because he presents a show. Surely Chris is the same? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.185.160.130 ( talk) 21:55, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- No, as mentioned many times above, having a show that many people listen to and watch is not enough to warrant a page. We have extremely clear policies on the criteria for inclusion, which you can see at WP:BASIC. For a person to be notable enough for inclusion, they must have independent secondary sources, as this is an indicator of public interest thus proving notability. In your example Phil Spencer, there are independent secondary sources, for example reference #5 from the Telegraph about him. A popular show means a show is popular, it means nothing in terms of notability of the show's host. Often times a show will become big enough, people will become interested in the show's host and then secondary sources are created. A complete lack of secondary sources show that an individual is simply not notable for any news organization to write about them, and thus are not notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. Meszzy2 ( talk) 09:06, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
So is Phil going to be listed for deletion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.185.158.36 ( talk) 13:39, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- How much longer will this go on?! This has been going over over 7 days. When will a decision be reached? — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
109.151.34.33 (
talk)
13:31, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
- It was relisted on March 27th, so a decision won't be reached until April 3rd. Meszzy2 ( talk) 22:07, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
- It’s pathetic really, I don’t see the problem. Chris on a national radio station so should have an article. Chris has provided several links which are notable. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
109.151.34.33 (
talk)
22:34, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
- No, being on a radio station does not mean someone should have an article. A person must be notable to the public to have an article. Wikipedia determines notability by the presence of secondary sources. There seems to be no secondary sources about Chris, meaning he is not notable and fails our criteria for inclusion. Meszzy2 ( talk) 01:19, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- How much longer will this go on?! This has been going over over 7 days. When will a decision be reached? — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
109.151.34.33 (
talk)
13:31, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
Haven't you looked at any of the many secondary sources provided above? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.185.158.36 ( talk) 13:37, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- Chris why have you re-added all your information again when you’ve been told this isn’t sufficient enough? It’ll be deleted again!
109.151.34.33 (
talk)
16:35, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- You only get a name check in the links, nothing about you at all. Tell me, why do you think you’re special enough to have an article? Clearly you have it ready to copy and paste. You best create a wiki article for the other people in the articles you provided pronto. They obviously deserve one too. Especially the paramedic! Not that the link has anything to do with radio, apart from a “mention” of you working Christmas Day. 109.151.34.33 ( talk) 16:38, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- The comment above “So, is phil going to be considered for deletion”. No, because he’s more notable than Chris. I think this comment proves it’s chris getting on his high horse, jealous possibly? — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
82.132.214.76 (
talk)
19:28, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- I addressed all the sources listed above in my original deletion statement. Phil's article has secondary sources about him, thus he meets our notability criteria.
Meszzy2 (
talk)
21:34, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- I addressed all the sources listed above in my original deletion statement. Phil's article has secondary sources about him, thus he meets our notability criteria.
Meszzy2 (
talk)
21:34, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- Chris why have you re-added all your information again when you’ve been told this isn’t sufficient enough? It’ll be deleted again!
109.151.34.33 (
talk)
16:35, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Comment. All the (IP) blog-style personal sparring in this 'discussion' will not make a blind bit of difference whether or not the article is deleted. And whether or not other articles fail or do not fail notability matters not a jot for the decision on this particular article. That is the bare truth of the matter. If anyone feels this article might fulfill Wikipedia requirements, you have first to consult WP:BASIC and WP:GNG and explain, under a bulleted section headed with a bolded Keep, how the sources offered for the article comply with these Wikipedia criteria. Nothing else is relevant or important. Thanks. Acabashi ( talk) 22:20, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep BBC article shows a good amount of coverage, coupled with numerous listings on BBC Schedules. 5 Live Science and documentary links are also significant. Some secondary sources including the Independent article and BBC Introducing article seem to supplement the main information - "multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". Some information is independent and verifiable (Independent article). With reference to "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity — although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject that meets the guidelines." The profile of Radio 3, 4 Extra and World Service enhance the acceptability of the person for inclusion. Also "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." so the Independent article is valid. Father NN but could be considered for inclusion based on the volume of entries on IMDB. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.185.160.125 ( talk) 19:12, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Staff profiles on the self-published websites of a person's own employer do not "enhance the acceptability of the person for inclusion", and neither do sources in which a person is simply quoted as a giver of soundbite in an article about another subject. A source must be fully independent of him, not self-created by himself or his employers, to support notability — and while he doesn't have to be the sole subject of a source, the source does have to be to at least some extent about him, which is not the same thing as "featuring him giving soundbite in an article whose subject is something else entirely". He has to be the thing that is being discussed, not a person speaking in a discussion about something else, to be the "subject" of a source. All of this has already been explained above — and trust me that anonymous IPs who think they know our rules better than the people who actually contribute here on a regular basis are not taken seriously.
Bearcat (
talk)
20:17, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- The reference to Radio 3, 4 Extra and WS have nothing to do with any staff profiles, merely a statement of fact that Chris broadcasts on those stations. Many of the sources (Independent article, PRI article, Introducing article) are to "some extent" about him. Maybe take it easy on the quotation marks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.185.160.125 ( talk) 21:02, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Staff profiles on the self-published websites of a person's own employer do not "enhance the acceptability of the person for inclusion", and neither do sources in which a person is simply quoted as a giver of soundbite in an article about another subject. A source must be fully independent of him, not self-created by himself or his employers, to support notability — and while he doesn't have to be the sole subject of a source, the source does have to be to at least some extent about him, which is not the same thing as "featuring him giving soundbite in an article whose subject is something else entirely". He has to be the thing that is being discussed, not a person speaking in a discussion about something else, to be the "subject" of a source. All of this has already been explained above — and trust me that anonymous IPs who think they know our rules better than the people who actually contribute here on a regular basis are not taken seriously.
Bearcat (
talk)
20:17, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Good lord, look at the contribution before your reply Bearcat. Lots of the previous edits have been done by that IP. Chris perhaps? When will a decision be reached? There’s no room for self promotion here! 82.132.233.126 ( talk) 20:52, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Chris, you’re now even tweeting about this discussion. Proves it’s you. Oh, and you’re a gamer now? That link seems a bit self promotion too. Still not suitable. PATHETIC and self promotion. Loving Bearcat’s quotation marks. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
82.132.233.126 (
talk)
21:05, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Per the above: do not comment on other's contributions in the way you have with Bearcat's above, which gives the impression of an attempt to co-opt a user. Keep strictly to the article, and whether or not it complies with WP:BASIC and WP:GNG. Thanks. Acabashi ( talk) 02:59, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- Chris, you’re now even tweeting about this discussion. Proves it’s you. Oh, and you’re a gamer now? That link seems a bit self promotion too. Still not suitable. PATHETIC and self promotion. Loving Bearcat’s quotation marks. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
82.132.233.126 (
talk)
21:05, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Comment. I have copyedited the article so the text only reflects the sources offered, with no judgement as to whether or not the text or refs are significant or trivia, so that others can better evaluate what the article amounts to. Acabashi ( talk) 03:11, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Seems to be a link to the Radio Times article here? https://twitter.com/DJChrisBerrow/status/920306899739955200 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.185.158.36 ( talk) 06:24, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- Still not good enough. They do this feature once a week, and the others don’t have articles. What makes you so special? 82.132.234.209 ( talk) 08:12, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Would like to just remind folks that is a discussion about whether or not this article is appropriate for deletion, and not about Chris Berrow himself or other editors. Please note that civility ( WP:CIVIL) is an official Wikipedia policy - which to me doesn't seem to be fully followed here right now. Meszzy2 ( talk) 16:19, 4 April 2019 (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.