- 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. Missvain ( talk) 15:40, 20 May 2021 (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}}. |
AfDs for this article:
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Graham Phillips (journalist) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Already deleted in 2015, now restored by an UK IP that looks like Phillips himself and the article basically looks like a copy-paste of his resume with a ton of link "done video here, done video there". Arguments for his non-notability haven't really changed since 2015 when he was a cameraman working for Russia Today, now he's a youtuber and that's pretty much all he's known for. Cloud200 ( talk) 10:34, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- I just checked Phillips' YouTube channel and he's been reporting from Croatia recently, so, nice one on that 'UK IP that looks like Phillips'.... 82.47.239.230 ( talk) 21:41, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 10:58, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.
Shellwood (
talk)
10:58, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- I see that he's covered by multiple secondary sources (Ukrainian, Russian and other) such as
RFE/RL
[1] and
Ukrainian Independent Information Agency
[2]. Can you explain why the
WP:BASIC criteria are not met?
Alaexis
¿question?
08:54, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- Because the
WP:BASIC criteria are intentionally vague to facilitate discussions like we have. Phillips had been indeed mentioned a few times in the news, but these are all mentions critical of his actions like taking part of torture of an Ukrainian soldier or desecrating the grave of Bandera. In my opinion these do not make him any more notable than any other youtuber that does scandalous stuff to get more views. There's not a single
WP:RS that would discuss the "phenomenon of Graham Phillips" or an interview suggesting he's a public figure. So while formally you could argue Phillips bio satisfies
WP:BASIC, I would argue it satisfies it barely, only by means of having a few international mentions here and there, but at the same time fells into the clear guidance that discourages creating separate bios of people who are only known for such PR stunts, as mentioned in
WP:PERP and
WP:ENT.
Cloud200 (
talk)
11:01, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- Could you please explain how his covering the
Russo-Ukrainian War for several years, as one of the notable western journalists to do that, like his reportage or not, counts as a 'PR stunt'....
82.47.239.230 (
talk)
11:09, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- Also note that he is on both the Russian, and Ukrainian wikipedia, largely for his work in the Russo-Ukrainian War - Филлипс,_Грэм_(журналист) , Грем_Філліпс - which again does not match your description of 'PR stunts'. 82.47.239.230 ( talk) 11:18, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- Could you please explain how his covering the
Russo-Ukrainian War for several years, as one of the notable western journalists to do that, like his reportage or not, counts as a 'PR stunt'....
82.47.239.230 (
talk)
11:09, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- Because the
WP:BASIC criteria are intentionally vague to facilitate discussions like we have. Phillips had been indeed mentioned a few times in the news, but these are all mentions critical of his actions like taking part of torture of an Ukrainian soldier or desecrating the grave of Bandera. In my opinion these do not make him any more notable than any other youtuber that does scandalous stuff to get more views. There's not a single
WP:RS that would discuss the "phenomenon of Graham Phillips" or an interview suggesting he's a public figure. So while formally you could argue Phillips bio satisfies
WP:BASIC, I would argue it satisfies it barely, only by means of having a few international mentions here and there, but at the same time fells into the clear guidance that discourages creating separate bios of people who are only known for such PR stunts, as mentioned in
WP:PERP and
WP:ENT.
Cloud200 (
talk)
11:01, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- I see that he's covered by multiple secondary sources (Ukrainian, Russian and other) such as
RFE/RL
[1] and
Ukrainian Independent Information Agency
[2]. Can you explain why the
WP:BASIC criteria are not met?
Alaexis
¿question?
08:54, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
There is zero reason WP:BASIC are not met here, it seems to be an Adhominem by Cloud200 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.47.224.247 ( talk • contribs)
- Hundreds of journalists, cameramen, bloggers and youtubers cover the Russo-Ukrainian War, yet it doesn't make them notable for Wikipedia. Presence of an article in Russian and Ukrainian Wikipedia may indicate he was considered notable in these Wikipedias, but doesn't have any impact on his notability here. Cloud200 ( talk) 19:12, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete If our policies against autobiographies are to mean anything, we need to delete them whenever we find them.12:00, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- It's very hard, actually impossible to believe here that you are being objective, and upholding the standards, and ideals of Wikpedia. You clearly have a highly negative view of Phillips, and his work, which is entirely compromising your actions here. 82.47.239.230 ( talk) 19:32, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep I wanted to find information on British journalist Graham Phillips, mostly known for his coverage of the war in Ukraine, and found it here. His work has been covered in multiple, international sources, not always positively, but surely there is no question of his notability. Strange that this page is up for deletion. Keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.47.224.247 ( talk) 12:46, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- Plus, if Phillips wrote it himself, which Cloud200 claims, then why so much criticism about him? I'm not even a huge fan of Phillips, but this feels like someone has a personal vendetta against him.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.47.224.247 ( talk • contribs)
- Delete This has too many primary sources, self-promotional links to the subject’s own commercial YouTube feed, and questionable sources listed at
WP:RSP. Let’s remove all that and see if there’s an encyclopedic article left in there. I’ll not support it in the current form. —
Michael
Z.
14:09, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- Actually, this is the original form. --► Sincerely: Sola virum 17:43, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Subject is on both the Russian and Ukrainian wikipedia, he himself is British. What reason could there be that he is not here?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.147.206.242 ( talk • contribs) — 195.147.206.242 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Keep Articles on wikipedia should be determined by their notability, and only that, not by bias of certain wikipedia editors against them. Phillips clearly meets notability criteria as per WP:BASIC. user:Lesya PZ 17:11, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete — I’m uncertain of the notability status but per TNT the article needs a fundamental re-write from a neutral stance or POV. Celestina007 ( talk) 16:20, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep I actually did a few early edits on the Phillips page as I was looking to build editing experience on Wikipedia, before creating an account. So it's a) a bit surreal, and b) disheartening to see some of what's written here. Accusing Phillips of creating and then editing his own page, as Cloud200 has done seems actually slanderous, unless there is solid proof, which there couldn't be because the page was created by Sola virum and then worked on by over a dozen editors. I was surprised that there wasn't already a page on Phillips on Wikipedia, so when it was created with not much there it was easy to populate because there is plenty of information about him online. Ok, I'm a new editor and still learning the ropes so if some of the edits I made didn't match NPOV then surely that is where a more senior editor steps in, and edits to get it to Wikipedia standards. However, instead of that, the article has been left as it is, and all the effort focused on getting it deleted, for what seems like clearly political reasons. Phillips clearly meets the WP:BASIC standards - I've read and read over them again and there's no way he doesn't meet them. So surely the thing to do is end counter-productive disputes such as this, and all work together to make this page, and all of Wikipedia better? I'm sorry if that sounds a bit cliched, or idealistic but surely you can see where I'm coming from? 82.47.239.230 ( talk) 21:30, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- I find it highly unlikely that an independent editor would go through the whole effort to create specific sections dedicated to "Journalism by Location", "Journalism by Theme" whose purpose is basically nothing more than listing videos done here and there, including unsourced sentences such as "However, despite Ukrainian efforts, Phillips is not known to have faced any charges, or any measures taken against him, in the United Kingdom" which are typically found in first-hand statements denying various allegations. There are facts in the article that are unsourced but speak in great detail of his personal interests ("He holds a keen interest in the dormant British car manufacturer Rover, he owns several vehicles of this brand and they are often a notable feature in his video reportage. He has reported extensively from the Longbridge plant.") which are not found in any articles. So yes, it is still my impression based on my experience that this article was written by either Phillips himself or someone close, such as a relative, friend or paid PR/SEO consultant.
Cloud200 (
talk)
11:01, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- Could it also be that your own clearly negative view of Phillips means that you can only believe that anything written about him not in the negative must be by 'relative, friend or paid PR/SEO consultant'? All of the points you've mentioned can be easily found in any of his video reportage, or across media, also from the Russian / Ukrainian wikipedia entries on him. I am new to wikipedia, you are clearly a senior, and very respected editor here, but it seems to me that you don't like him, and are therefore making your 'impressions' suit that position, rather than looking at things objectively....
82.47.239.230 (
talk)
11:14, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- I explained in details why I have this impression. You don't argue with any of these items, and instead resort to an
ad hominem argument.
Cloud200 (
talk)
19:12, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- I don't argue because I don't want to argue - I'd rather do something positive on Wikipedia. As I say, I'm a new editor, haven't even decided my username yet. I respect your contribution and length of time on Wikipedia, but clearly here you are acting not as Wikipedian, but somethign with a political / personal vendetta. And it's certainly ironic to accuse of me
ad hominem after all the abuse you've written about Phillips. However, to take you up on a point, I looked over and saw that there is almost no pesonal information about Phillips on the page - surely if it were a source 'close to him', as you state, they would have access to this information, as it is, there is nothing. Everything referenced in the article is clearly sourced, searchable, accountable. As I say, you've made a huge contribution to Wikipedia over many years, but here you are letting your own personal agenda get in the way of making Wikipedia a better place.....
82.47.239.230 (
talk)
19:32, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- That's my very point. You don't dispute the issues I raised above, you just run and accuse everyone who thinks this autobiography is not notable of "political vendetta". That's textbook definition of
ad hominem. Also be sure to read
WP:NOTFORUM.
Cloud200 (
talk)
20:15, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
- Ok, I accept your point, and apologise if I did anything incorrectly - I'm still a new Wikipedia editor, not even registered here yet. I've made major edits to the Phillips article and stripped out anything that does not meet Wikipedia standards as per WP:NOTFORUM. 82.47.239.230 ( talk) 20:46, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
- That's my very point. You don't dispute the issues I raised above, you just run and accuse everyone who thinks this autobiography is not notable of "political vendetta". That's textbook definition of
ad hominem. Also be sure to read
WP:NOTFORUM.
Cloud200 (
talk)
20:15, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
- I don't argue because I don't want to argue - I'd rather do something positive on Wikipedia. As I say, I'm a new editor, haven't even decided my username yet. I respect your contribution and length of time on Wikipedia, but clearly here you are acting not as Wikipedian, but somethign with a political / personal vendetta. And it's certainly ironic to accuse of me
ad hominem after all the abuse you've written about Phillips. However, to take you up on a point, I looked over and saw that there is almost no pesonal information about Phillips on the page - surely if it were a source 'close to him', as you state, they would have access to this information, as it is, there is nothing. Everything referenced in the article is clearly sourced, searchable, accountable. As I say, you've made a huge contribution to Wikipedia over many years, but here you are letting your own personal agenda get in the way of making Wikipedia a better place.....
82.47.239.230 (
talk)
19:32, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- I explained in details why I have this impression. You don't argue with any of these items, and instead resort to an
ad hominem argument.
Cloud200 (
talk)
19:12, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- Could it also be that your own clearly negative view of Phillips means that you can only believe that anything written about him not in the negative must be by 'relative, friend or paid PR/SEO consultant'? All of the points you've mentioned can be easily found in any of his video reportage, or across media, also from the Russian / Ukrainian wikipedia entries on him. I am new to wikipedia, you are clearly a senior, and very respected editor here, but it seems to me that you don't like him, and are therefore making your 'impressions' suit that position, rather than looking at things objectively....
82.47.239.230 (
talk)
11:14, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- I find it highly unlikely that an independent editor would go through the whole effort to create specific sections dedicated to "Journalism by Location", "Journalism by Theme" whose purpose is basically nothing more than listing videos done here and there, including unsourced sentences such as "However, despite Ukrainian efforts, Phillips is not known to have faced any charges, or any measures taken against him, in the United Kingdom" which are typically found in first-hand statements denying various allegations. There are facts in the article that are unsourced but speak in great detail of his personal interests ("He holds a keen interest in the dormant British car manufacturer Rover, he owns several vehicles of this brand and they are often a notable feature in his video reportage. He has reported extensively from the Longbridge plant.") which are not found in any articles. So yes, it is still my impression based on my experience that this article was written by either Phillips himself or someone close, such as a relative, friend or paid PR/SEO consultant.
Cloud200 (
talk)
11:01, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete – Not notable. And it's clear that all these IP edits are Philips himself. Sloutsch ( talk) 09:48, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Clearly meets notability criteria several times over, way too much bias and personal agendas going on here..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.140.138.201 ( talk) 15:41, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- Comment The multiple, largely co-located IPs participating here, with few edits to their names, some only on this subject, should be aware that these facts are evident about them.
- To those proclaiming the notability of the subject, there is so much in the article which is not supported, not supported by the sources given, the source given is primary or not clearly reliable in Wikipedia terms that the impression is given that there is nothing to support notability. Drastically prune out all this dead wood if you want to highlight any remaining which does actually establish notability. It is perfectly valid to use citations in foreign languages but, as most English speakers can't establish its content or reliability, relying solely on these when the English language ones are not credible would be too much to ask. Mutt Lunker ( talk) 22:56, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- I had a look at the other IPs, and it seems 'largely co-located' means mostly in the UK, which would seem plausible. I'm in the UK and I've given my reasons above for being an IP at this stage. What you state clearly has a point, and I accept that I may be to blame for some of how the article looks - I saw the article on Phillips was sparse, and rushed to fill it in because I thought this was for the best for Wikipedia. If I've made misjudgements in this then, as a new Wikipedia user - this is the first time I've edited anything, and the only article I've edited here, and I'm still an IP address, then ok, I accept that. From what you say, I should have focused more on citations, than primary sources. However, surely it would be possible for other, more experienced Wikipedians to edit, and correct that? Or should I have a go at pruning? For whatever my errors, the move to delete the article on Phillips outright is surely also driven by personal and political motivations - user Cloud200 for example has made several ad hominem remarks against Phillips which would surely indicate a personal bias, even contempt, and that this editor does not have the requisite objectivity to be involved here. My own position on Phillips is pretty simple - I'm a viewer of his YouTube channel, general follower of his work, don't necessarily idealize him, and actually I added in several criticisms on the article. He is clearly notable enough to be on Wikipedia, just as you say, the question is in what format. I'm only making contributions here, for now, rather than the article as it would be great to get it resolved, I'll register with a username on Wikipedia, and we can all go forward positively in the true spirit of Wikipedia. 82.47.239.230 ( talk) 13:05, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
- There is no objection to editing as an IP. My point regarded what the co-location may indicate and much of it is very considerably closer than "in the UK".
- Whatever anyone participating here thinks of Phillips is neither here nor there in regard to the article in its current form. It is so crammed with chaff that wheat is not readily evident. Should anyone be motivated purely by bias, and I see no indication of this, they can have a field day anyway. You do realise notability has specific definition here and is not a subjective view on the subject's worth?
- By all means prune away but it will have to be copious and what is left must establish notability from reliable sources. Mutt Lunker ( talk) 14:39, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
- Ok, at your suggestion am pruning away. And, as I say, I will be becoming a fully-fledged Wikipedian soon, but I know then that everything I do goes on record, and wanting a perfect record I'm practicing as an IP. I accept your points, and acknowledge that some of my earlier edits were not to Wikipedia standard. I'm pruning now, working towards that, will hopefully resolve this, learn from it, and go onto other articles as a Wikipedian! Thank you 82.47.239.230 ( talk) 15:18, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Your edit history is as evident as an IP as it is as a registered editor and, it may not be what you are attempting to convey but I'm uneasy about the notion of practising as an IP to avoid imperfections being recorded. Genuine errors as a beginner will receive some slack, registered or not; attempts to obscure your history will be viewed differently. Mutt Lunker ( talk) 15:56, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
- Noted - I am trying to do everything correctly, including choosing the correct username for myself, thank you for the advice. As you suggested, I've pruned the Phillips article, and also removed all primary sources, so it's really over to you now. 82.47.239.230 ( talk) 18:07, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
- This should be useful in checking the reliability, or otherwise, of sources. Mutt Lunker ( talk) 21:06, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you so much for everything Mutt Lunker!! 82.47.239.230 ( talk) 21:45, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. Regarding notability, this guy was mentioned in the Russian news sites like RIA and Gazeta many times, especially since 2014. The article does look autobiographic though. Therefore, I'd recommend cleaning it up instead of deleting. Dr.KBAHT ( talk) 19:09, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm leaning towards delete. I'd like some more established editors to look this over.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain ( talk) 23:29, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Relisting comment: I'm leaning towards delete. I'd like some more established editors to look this over.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain ( talk) 23:29, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete: barely notable, the IP Edits indeed look like self-promo, needs 100% NPOV re-write CommanderWaterford ( talk) 19:26, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Sorry, I'm not a super-dooper wikipedia editor, but what is going on here? This guy is a well known journalist, has been referenced all over the place, and for many years. I'm not even a huge fan of his, but for sure there should be an article on him on wikipedia - and you want to delete it?? This seems pretty much like extreme wikipedia deletionism going on, shame.... 95.214.66.65 ( talk) 01:39, 14 May 2021 (UTC)— 95.214.66.65 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Keep The sources on the page look like easily enough to meet general notability. PohranicniStraze ( talk) 07:41, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete, take it to AfC Fail to meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for journalists. Just another journalist. The article has multiple issues. I tried to fix some of them and it turned out that the article was written by someone who was trying to promote the subject of the article: original research, synthesis, omission, adding multiple irrelevant source for a single statement just to create the illusion of significant coverage. The main sources in the article are either sources with borderline reliability or, in general, sources with completely unknown status. It may seem that the article cites many independent English-language sources, but look at each of them separately. Some of them are either small unknown sources or Russian-language small sources with incorrectly filled citation parameters. If one of the editors really believes that this subject can have an article, then I see no problem to go through AfC.-- Renat 09:06, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete I'm the one who listed it for AfD, so I will just reiterate issues with this article: the person barely satisfies WP:BASIC if stretched, but also goes against WP:PERP and WP:ENT. The article was written in self-promotional style, inflated with links to non-notable WP:PRIMARY sources, mostly YouTube videos of Phillips himself, some personal details (like that on cars) were completely unsourced indicating insider knowledge and personal relationship to the subject. The article is being pushed by a single IP user that didn't even have time/interest to register an account for over a month but is very vocal on this discussion, along with a number of other IP users. All other participants note low quality of the article. Edits so kindly made by User:RenatUK did clean up all the self-promotional content but even now the article is mostly sourced by self-published sources such as medium.com, YouTube and obscure Russia Today spin-offs. A few WP:RS sources mention him in the context of specific events such as arrests or provocative PR stunts, which goes clearly against WP:PERP and WP:ENT. When these are sifted, there's nothing much left apart from "a journalist born 1979" so I believe the proposal to delete and take it to AfC as proposed above is the most reasonable one. Cloud200 ( talk) 10:28, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep and comment - so I had been following this discussion but before now I don't join in because I am seeing how much people here hate edits by IP addresses - sorry guys, that is just how many of us are using Wiki. So the comments by Cloud200 make me want to add something - I get that Cloud200 really doesn't like Phillips, and looks for everything negative, but when he says that 'the article is mostly sourced by self-published sources such as medium.com, YouTube and obscure Russia Today spin-offs' then I am gonna call bs. Just 5 examples -
1. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-27503743 - BBC 2. https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/maxseddon/how-a-british-blogger-became-an-unlikely-star-of-the-ukraine#.vs68mYGvd - BuzzFeed 3. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/21/british-journalist-graham-phillips-detained-east-ukraine - The_Guardian 4. https://balkaninsight.com/2019/03/11/uk-journalist-banned-from-twitter-angers-some-in-kosovo/ - Balkan_Insight 5. https://www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/news/local/perth-kinross/547116/exclusive-tayside-journalist-worked-russia-today-rubbishes-claims-alex-salmond-will-become-putins-puppet/ - The_Courier_(Dundee)
I could go on, but let me say this, that this debate does not look professional from Wikipedia point of view, Wikipedia risks to loose credibility - this seems like it is some kind of friends' club and only allowed on Wikipedia is people the Wikipedia admins like, and if they do not like you they write bs about subject to give a reason to delete page. It's like the school playground..... 195.133.224.50 ( talk) 12:05, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- That's my very point — you listed about all WP:RS sources from the article that even mention Phillips, and that's about it. You cay you "could go on" but you really couldn't. Out of the sources you listed 1 and 3 talk about the same event (arrest in Ukraine, WP:PERP applies). Number 4 is once again coverage of a single event Phillips participated in (Twitter ban). Then number 5 is an article about Salmond where Phillips is expressing his opinion and nothing more. Finally number 2 is the only article that offers a broader perspective on Phillip activities and biography, but even it calls him "a marginal character". You can raise your tone and apply ad hominem arguments as much as you like, but this won't change the fact the person in subject is precisely what BuzzFeed called him − "a marginal character". Oh, and I'm not even an Wiki admin, and I don't know any of the editors voicing their comments here (not even from IRC). Whatever will be decided about the fate of this article, is OK with me, I made my comments. Cloud200 ( talk) 14:17, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep If Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, then Graham Phillips is obviously notable enough to be here, he is the well-known journalist, a lot Russia, but not only. I do not think that this negativety here about Phillips is appropriate, imho. He is what he is, the well-known journalist - I see the last comment says from an article that he is a "marginal character", but this article is from 2014, and since then he is quite mainstream. Andrey.
- Comment I read over this more and see that the same user Cloud200 who started this AfD then writes a stream of negative comments about Phillips, and even votes themself for the article to be deleted. I am only the 'IP address user' of Wikipedia it is true, but this seems to me not correct, not like a fair debate, or Wikipedia protocol, but like a campaign against the subject, Phillips. By the way there has been an article on him on the Russian wikipedia for many years, no problems, and here, all these problems and arguments..... Interesting. Andrey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.59.138.0 ( talk) 10:50, 16 May 2021 (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. Missvain ( talk) 15:40, 20 May 2021 (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}}. |
AfDs for this article:
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Graham Phillips (journalist) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Already deleted in 2015, now restored by an UK IP that looks like Phillips himself and the article basically looks like a copy-paste of his resume with a ton of link "done video here, done video there". Arguments for his non-notability haven't really changed since 2015 when he was a cameraman working for Russia Today, now he's a youtuber and that's pretty much all he's known for. Cloud200 ( talk) 10:34, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- I just checked Phillips' YouTube channel and he's been reporting from Croatia recently, so, nice one on that 'UK IP that looks like Phillips'.... 82.47.239.230 ( talk) 21:41, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 10:58, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.
Shellwood (
talk)
10:58, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- I see that he's covered by multiple secondary sources (Ukrainian, Russian and other) such as
RFE/RL
[1] and
Ukrainian Independent Information Agency
[2]. Can you explain why the
WP:BASIC criteria are not met?
Alaexis
¿question?
08:54, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- Because the
WP:BASIC criteria are intentionally vague to facilitate discussions like we have. Phillips had been indeed mentioned a few times in the news, but these are all mentions critical of his actions like taking part of torture of an Ukrainian soldier or desecrating the grave of Bandera. In my opinion these do not make him any more notable than any other youtuber that does scandalous stuff to get more views. There's not a single
WP:RS that would discuss the "phenomenon of Graham Phillips" or an interview suggesting he's a public figure. So while formally you could argue Phillips bio satisfies
WP:BASIC, I would argue it satisfies it barely, only by means of having a few international mentions here and there, but at the same time fells into the clear guidance that discourages creating separate bios of people who are only known for such PR stunts, as mentioned in
WP:PERP and
WP:ENT.
Cloud200 (
talk)
11:01, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- Could you please explain how his covering the
Russo-Ukrainian War for several years, as one of the notable western journalists to do that, like his reportage or not, counts as a 'PR stunt'....
82.47.239.230 (
talk)
11:09, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- Also note that he is on both the Russian, and Ukrainian wikipedia, largely for his work in the Russo-Ukrainian War - Филлипс,_Грэм_(журналист) , Грем_Філліпс - which again does not match your description of 'PR stunts'. 82.47.239.230 ( talk) 11:18, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- Could you please explain how his covering the
Russo-Ukrainian War for several years, as one of the notable western journalists to do that, like his reportage or not, counts as a 'PR stunt'....
82.47.239.230 (
talk)
11:09, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- Because the
WP:BASIC criteria are intentionally vague to facilitate discussions like we have. Phillips had been indeed mentioned a few times in the news, but these are all mentions critical of his actions like taking part of torture of an Ukrainian soldier or desecrating the grave of Bandera. In my opinion these do not make him any more notable than any other youtuber that does scandalous stuff to get more views. There's not a single
WP:RS that would discuss the "phenomenon of Graham Phillips" or an interview suggesting he's a public figure. So while formally you could argue Phillips bio satisfies
WP:BASIC, I would argue it satisfies it barely, only by means of having a few international mentions here and there, but at the same time fells into the clear guidance that discourages creating separate bios of people who are only known for such PR stunts, as mentioned in
WP:PERP and
WP:ENT.
Cloud200 (
talk)
11:01, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- I see that he's covered by multiple secondary sources (Ukrainian, Russian and other) such as
RFE/RL
[1] and
Ukrainian Independent Information Agency
[2]. Can you explain why the
WP:BASIC criteria are not met?
Alaexis
¿question?
08:54, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
There is zero reason WP:BASIC are not met here, it seems to be an Adhominem by Cloud200 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.47.224.247 ( talk • contribs)
- Hundreds of journalists, cameramen, bloggers and youtubers cover the Russo-Ukrainian War, yet it doesn't make them notable for Wikipedia. Presence of an article in Russian and Ukrainian Wikipedia may indicate he was considered notable in these Wikipedias, but doesn't have any impact on his notability here. Cloud200 ( talk) 19:12, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete If our policies against autobiographies are to mean anything, we need to delete them whenever we find them.12:00, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- It's very hard, actually impossible to believe here that you are being objective, and upholding the standards, and ideals of Wikpedia. You clearly have a highly negative view of Phillips, and his work, which is entirely compromising your actions here. 82.47.239.230 ( talk) 19:32, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep I wanted to find information on British journalist Graham Phillips, mostly known for his coverage of the war in Ukraine, and found it here. His work has been covered in multiple, international sources, not always positively, but surely there is no question of his notability. Strange that this page is up for deletion. Keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.47.224.247 ( talk) 12:46, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- Plus, if Phillips wrote it himself, which Cloud200 claims, then why so much criticism about him? I'm not even a huge fan of Phillips, but this feels like someone has a personal vendetta against him.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.47.224.247 ( talk • contribs)
- Delete This has too many primary sources, self-promotional links to the subject’s own commercial YouTube feed, and questionable sources listed at
WP:RSP. Let’s remove all that and see if there’s an encyclopedic article left in there. I’ll not support it in the current form. —
Michael
Z.
14:09, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- Actually, this is the original form. --► Sincerely: Sola virum 17:43, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Subject is on both the Russian and Ukrainian wikipedia, he himself is British. What reason could there be that he is not here?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.147.206.242 ( talk • contribs) — 195.147.206.242 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Keep Articles on wikipedia should be determined by their notability, and only that, not by bias of certain wikipedia editors against them. Phillips clearly meets notability criteria as per WP:BASIC. user:Lesya PZ 17:11, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete — I’m uncertain of the notability status but per TNT the article needs a fundamental re-write from a neutral stance or POV. Celestina007 ( talk) 16:20, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep I actually did a few early edits on the Phillips page as I was looking to build editing experience on Wikipedia, before creating an account. So it's a) a bit surreal, and b) disheartening to see some of what's written here. Accusing Phillips of creating and then editing his own page, as Cloud200 has done seems actually slanderous, unless there is solid proof, which there couldn't be because the page was created by Sola virum and then worked on by over a dozen editors. I was surprised that there wasn't already a page on Phillips on Wikipedia, so when it was created with not much there it was easy to populate because there is plenty of information about him online. Ok, I'm a new editor and still learning the ropes so if some of the edits I made didn't match NPOV then surely that is where a more senior editor steps in, and edits to get it to Wikipedia standards. However, instead of that, the article has been left as it is, and all the effort focused on getting it deleted, for what seems like clearly political reasons. Phillips clearly meets the WP:BASIC standards - I've read and read over them again and there's no way he doesn't meet them. So surely the thing to do is end counter-productive disputes such as this, and all work together to make this page, and all of Wikipedia better? I'm sorry if that sounds a bit cliched, or idealistic but surely you can see where I'm coming from? 82.47.239.230 ( talk) 21:30, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- I find it highly unlikely that an independent editor would go through the whole effort to create specific sections dedicated to "Journalism by Location", "Journalism by Theme" whose purpose is basically nothing more than listing videos done here and there, including unsourced sentences such as "However, despite Ukrainian efforts, Phillips is not known to have faced any charges, or any measures taken against him, in the United Kingdom" which are typically found in first-hand statements denying various allegations. There are facts in the article that are unsourced but speak in great detail of his personal interests ("He holds a keen interest in the dormant British car manufacturer Rover, he owns several vehicles of this brand and they are often a notable feature in his video reportage. He has reported extensively from the Longbridge plant.") which are not found in any articles. So yes, it is still my impression based on my experience that this article was written by either Phillips himself or someone close, such as a relative, friend or paid PR/SEO consultant.
Cloud200 (
talk)
11:01, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- Could it also be that your own clearly negative view of Phillips means that you can only believe that anything written about him not in the negative must be by 'relative, friend or paid PR/SEO consultant'? All of the points you've mentioned can be easily found in any of his video reportage, or across media, also from the Russian / Ukrainian wikipedia entries on him. I am new to wikipedia, you are clearly a senior, and very respected editor here, but it seems to me that you don't like him, and are therefore making your 'impressions' suit that position, rather than looking at things objectively....
82.47.239.230 (
talk)
11:14, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- I explained in details why I have this impression. You don't argue with any of these items, and instead resort to an
ad hominem argument.
Cloud200 (
talk)
19:12, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- I don't argue because I don't want to argue - I'd rather do something positive on Wikipedia. As I say, I'm a new editor, haven't even decided my username yet. I respect your contribution and length of time on Wikipedia, but clearly here you are acting not as Wikipedian, but somethign with a political / personal vendetta. And it's certainly ironic to accuse of me
ad hominem after all the abuse you've written about Phillips. However, to take you up on a point, I looked over and saw that there is almost no pesonal information about Phillips on the page - surely if it were a source 'close to him', as you state, they would have access to this information, as it is, there is nothing. Everything referenced in the article is clearly sourced, searchable, accountable. As I say, you've made a huge contribution to Wikipedia over many years, but here you are letting your own personal agenda get in the way of making Wikipedia a better place.....
82.47.239.230 (
talk)
19:32, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- That's my very point. You don't dispute the issues I raised above, you just run and accuse everyone who thinks this autobiography is not notable of "political vendetta". That's textbook definition of
ad hominem. Also be sure to read
WP:NOTFORUM.
Cloud200 (
talk)
20:15, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
- Ok, I accept your point, and apologise if I did anything incorrectly - I'm still a new Wikipedia editor, not even registered here yet. I've made major edits to the Phillips article and stripped out anything that does not meet Wikipedia standards as per WP:NOTFORUM. 82.47.239.230 ( talk) 20:46, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
- That's my very point. You don't dispute the issues I raised above, you just run and accuse everyone who thinks this autobiography is not notable of "political vendetta". That's textbook definition of
ad hominem. Also be sure to read
WP:NOTFORUM.
Cloud200 (
talk)
20:15, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
- I don't argue because I don't want to argue - I'd rather do something positive on Wikipedia. As I say, I'm a new editor, haven't even decided my username yet. I respect your contribution and length of time on Wikipedia, but clearly here you are acting not as Wikipedian, but somethign with a political / personal vendetta. And it's certainly ironic to accuse of me
ad hominem after all the abuse you've written about Phillips. However, to take you up on a point, I looked over and saw that there is almost no pesonal information about Phillips on the page - surely if it were a source 'close to him', as you state, they would have access to this information, as it is, there is nothing. Everything referenced in the article is clearly sourced, searchable, accountable. As I say, you've made a huge contribution to Wikipedia over many years, but here you are letting your own personal agenda get in the way of making Wikipedia a better place.....
82.47.239.230 (
talk)
19:32, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- I explained in details why I have this impression. You don't argue with any of these items, and instead resort to an
ad hominem argument.
Cloud200 (
talk)
19:12, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- Could it also be that your own clearly negative view of Phillips means that you can only believe that anything written about him not in the negative must be by 'relative, friend or paid PR/SEO consultant'? All of the points you've mentioned can be easily found in any of his video reportage, or across media, also from the Russian / Ukrainian wikipedia entries on him. I am new to wikipedia, you are clearly a senior, and very respected editor here, but it seems to me that you don't like him, and are therefore making your 'impressions' suit that position, rather than looking at things objectively....
82.47.239.230 (
talk)
11:14, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- I find it highly unlikely that an independent editor would go through the whole effort to create specific sections dedicated to "Journalism by Location", "Journalism by Theme" whose purpose is basically nothing more than listing videos done here and there, including unsourced sentences such as "However, despite Ukrainian efforts, Phillips is not known to have faced any charges, or any measures taken against him, in the United Kingdom" which are typically found in first-hand statements denying various allegations. There are facts in the article that are unsourced but speak in great detail of his personal interests ("He holds a keen interest in the dormant British car manufacturer Rover, he owns several vehicles of this brand and they are often a notable feature in his video reportage. He has reported extensively from the Longbridge plant.") which are not found in any articles. So yes, it is still my impression based on my experience that this article was written by either Phillips himself or someone close, such as a relative, friend or paid PR/SEO consultant.
Cloud200 (
talk)
11:01, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete – Not notable. And it's clear that all these IP edits are Philips himself. Sloutsch ( talk) 09:48, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Clearly meets notability criteria several times over, way too much bias and personal agendas going on here..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.140.138.201 ( talk) 15:41, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- Comment The multiple, largely co-located IPs participating here, with few edits to their names, some only on this subject, should be aware that these facts are evident about them.
- To those proclaiming the notability of the subject, there is so much in the article which is not supported, not supported by the sources given, the source given is primary or not clearly reliable in Wikipedia terms that the impression is given that there is nothing to support notability. Drastically prune out all this dead wood if you want to highlight any remaining which does actually establish notability. It is perfectly valid to use citations in foreign languages but, as most English speakers can't establish its content or reliability, relying solely on these when the English language ones are not credible would be too much to ask. Mutt Lunker ( talk) 22:56, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- I had a look at the other IPs, and it seems 'largely co-located' means mostly in the UK, which would seem plausible. I'm in the UK and I've given my reasons above for being an IP at this stage. What you state clearly has a point, and I accept that I may be to blame for some of how the article looks - I saw the article on Phillips was sparse, and rushed to fill it in because I thought this was for the best for Wikipedia. If I've made misjudgements in this then, as a new Wikipedia user - this is the first time I've edited anything, and the only article I've edited here, and I'm still an IP address, then ok, I accept that. From what you say, I should have focused more on citations, than primary sources. However, surely it would be possible for other, more experienced Wikipedians to edit, and correct that? Or should I have a go at pruning? For whatever my errors, the move to delete the article on Phillips outright is surely also driven by personal and political motivations - user Cloud200 for example has made several ad hominem remarks against Phillips which would surely indicate a personal bias, even contempt, and that this editor does not have the requisite objectivity to be involved here. My own position on Phillips is pretty simple - I'm a viewer of his YouTube channel, general follower of his work, don't necessarily idealize him, and actually I added in several criticisms on the article. He is clearly notable enough to be on Wikipedia, just as you say, the question is in what format. I'm only making contributions here, for now, rather than the article as it would be great to get it resolved, I'll register with a username on Wikipedia, and we can all go forward positively in the true spirit of Wikipedia. 82.47.239.230 ( talk) 13:05, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
- There is no objection to editing as an IP. My point regarded what the co-location may indicate and much of it is very considerably closer than "in the UK".
- Whatever anyone participating here thinks of Phillips is neither here nor there in regard to the article in its current form. It is so crammed with chaff that wheat is not readily evident. Should anyone be motivated purely by bias, and I see no indication of this, they can have a field day anyway. You do realise notability has specific definition here and is not a subjective view on the subject's worth?
- By all means prune away but it will have to be copious and what is left must establish notability from reliable sources. Mutt Lunker ( talk) 14:39, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
- Ok, at your suggestion am pruning away. And, as I say, I will be becoming a fully-fledged Wikipedian soon, but I know then that everything I do goes on record, and wanting a perfect record I'm practicing as an IP. I accept your points, and acknowledge that some of my earlier edits were not to Wikipedia standard. I'm pruning now, working towards that, will hopefully resolve this, learn from it, and go onto other articles as a Wikipedian! Thank you 82.47.239.230 ( talk) 15:18, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Your edit history is as evident as an IP as it is as a registered editor and, it may not be what you are attempting to convey but I'm uneasy about the notion of practising as an IP to avoid imperfections being recorded. Genuine errors as a beginner will receive some slack, registered or not; attempts to obscure your history will be viewed differently. Mutt Lunker ( talk) 15:56, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
- Noted - I am trying to do everything correctly, including choosing the correct username for myself, thank you for the advice. As you suggested, I've pruned the Phillips article, and also removed all primary sources, so it's really over to you now. 82.47.239.230 ( talk) 18:07, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
- This should be useful in checking the reliability, or otherwise, of sources. Mutt Lunker ( talk) 21:06, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you so much for everything Mutt Lunker!! 82.47.239.230 ( talk) 21:45, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. Regarding notability, this guy was mentioned in the Russian news sites like RIA and Gazeta many times, especially since 2014. The article does look autobiographic though. Therefore, I'd recommend cleaning it up instead of deleting. Dr.KBAHT ( talk) 19:09, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm leaning towards delete. I'd like some more established editors to look this over.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain ( talk) 23:29, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Relisting comment: I'm leaning towards delete. I'd like some more established editors to look this over.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain ( talk) 23:29, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete: barely notable, the IP Edits indeed look like self-promo, needs 100% NPOV re-write CommanderWaterford ( talk) 19:26, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Sorry, I'm not a super-dooper wikipedia editor, but what is going on here? This guy is a well known journalist, has been referenced all over the place, and for many years. I'm not even a huge fan of his, but for sure there should be an article on him on wikipedia - and you want to delete it?? This seems pretty much like extreme wikipedia deletionism going on, shame.... 95.214.66.65 ( talk) 01:39, 14 May 2021 (UTC)— 95.214.66.65 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Keep The sources on the page look like easily enough to meet general notability. PohranicniStraze ( talk) 07:41, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete, take it to AfC Fail to meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for journalists. Just another journalist. The article has multiple issues. I tried to fix some of them and it turned out that the article was written by someone who was trying to promote the subject of the article: original research, synthesis, omission, adding multiple irrelevant source for a single statement just to create the illusion of significant coverage. The main sources in the article are either sources with borderline reliability or, in general, sources with completely unknown status. It may seem that the article cites many independent English-language sources, but look at each of them separately. Some of them are either small unknown sources or Russian-language small sources with incorrectly filled citation parameters. If one of the editors really believes that this subject can have an article, then I see no problem to go through AfC.-- Renat 09:06, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete I'm the one who listed it for AfD, so I will just reiterate issues with this article: the person barely satisfies WP:BASIC if stretched, but also goes against WP:PERP and WP:ENT. The article was written in self-promotional style, inflated with links to non-notable WP:PRIMARY sources, mostly YouTube videos of Phillips himself, some personal details (like that on cars) were completely unsourced indicating insider knowledge and personal relationship to the subject. The article is being pushed by a single IP user that didn't even have time/interest to register an account for over a month but is very vocal on this discussion, along with a number of other IP users. All other participants note low quality of the article. Edits so kindly made by User:RenatUK did clean up all the self-promotional content but even now the article is mostly sourced by self-published sources such as medium.com, YouTube and obscure Russia Today spin-offs. A few WP:RS sources mention him in the context of specific events such as arrests or provocative PR stunts, which goes clearly against WP:PERP and WP:ENT. When these are sifted, there's nothing much left apart from "a journalist born 1979" so I believe the proposal to delete and take it to AfC as proposed above is the most reasonable one. Cloud200 ( talk) 10:28, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep and comment - so I had been following this discussion but before now I don't join in because I am seeing how much people here hate edits by IP addresses - sorry guys, that is just how many of us are using Wiki. So the comments by Cloud200 make me want to add something - I get that Cloud200 really doesn't like Phillips, and looks for everything negative, but when he says that 'the article is mostly sourced by self-published sources such as medium.com, YouTube and obscure Russia Today spin-offs' then I am gonna call bs. Just 5 examples -
1. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-27503743 - BBC 2. https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/maxseddon/how-a-british-blogger-became-an-unlikely-star-of-the-ukraine#.vs68mYGvd - BuzzFeed 3. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/21/british-journalist-graham-phillips-detained-east-ukraine - The_Guardian 4. https://balkaninsight.com/2019/03/11/uk-journalist-banned-from-twitter-angers-some-in-kosovo/ - Balkan_Insight 5. https://www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/news/local/perth-kinross/547116/exclusive-tayside-journalist-worked-russia-today-rubbishes-claims-alex-salmond-will-become-putins-puppet/ - The_Courier_(Dundee)
I could go on, but let me say this, that this debate does not look professional from Wikipedia point of view, Wikipedia risks to loose credibility - this seems like it is some kind of friends' club and only allowed on Wikipedia is people the Wikipedia admins like, and if they do not like you they write bs about subject to give a reason to delete page. It's like the school playground..... 195.133.224.50 ( talk) 12:05, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- That's my very point — you listed about all WP:RS sources from the article that even mention Phillips, and that's about it. You cay you "could go on" but you really couldn't. Out of the sources you listed 1 and 3 talk about the same event (arrest in Ukraine, WP:PERP applies). Number 4 is once again coverage of a single event Phillips participated in (Twitter ban). Then number 5 is an article about Salmond where Phillips is expressing his opinion and nothing more. Finally number 2 is the only article that offers a broader perspective on Phillip activities and biography, but even it calls him "a marginal character". You can raise your tone and apply ad hominem arguments as much as you like, but this won't change the fact the person in subject is precisely what BuzzFeed called him − "a marginal character". Oh, and I'm not even an Wiki admin, and I don't know any of the editors voicing their comments here (not even from IRC). Whatever will be decided about the fate of this article, is OK with me, I made my comments. Cloud200 ( talk) 14:17, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep If Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, then Graham Phillips is obviously notable enough to be here, he is the well-known journalist, a lot Russia, but not only. I do not think that this negativety here about Phillips is appropriate, imho. He is what he is, the well-known journalist - I see the last comment says from an article that he is a "marginal character", but this article is from 2014, and since then he is quite mainstream. Andrey.
- Comment I read over this more and see that the same user Cloud200 who started this AfD then writes a stream of negative comments about Phillips, and even votes themself for the article to be deleted. I am only the 'IP address user' of Wikipedia it is true, but this seems to me not correct, not like a fair debate, or Wikipedia protocol, but like a campaign against the subject, Phillips. By the way there has been an article on him on the Russian wikipedia for many years, no problems, and here, all these problems and arguments..... Interesting. Andrey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.59.138.0 ( talk) 10:50, 16 May 2021 (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.