- 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 redirect to The Biggest Loser (UK TV series). It's a WP:ONEEVENT case, but redirects are cheap and it's a somewhat plausible search term. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 08:04, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
- Rob Edmond ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I don;t think any of this is notable. He has been a trained or various TV program, but that is not notability. For good measure, the article is clearly of a promotional intent, for it takes care to include the name of the agent who represents him. And the key career he is listed as pursuing is that of a "media personality". DGG ( talk ) 01:49, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
- KEEP In line with Wikipedia:Notability_(people) policy demonstrates he is notable - This guy is a presenter of a prime time UK TV programme with over 2.5 million viewers, this is the most famous and popular show format in its field, he took a primary role in the show, appearing on other wiki pages before this new page was written. He seems to be one of the most notable in the UK in his field. There are a good number of sources shown on the page but a large number of other sources can be easily found which meet the criteria set out by wiki to indicate a person to be deemed notable, due diligence search will confirm this. He has appeared again on a different prime time TV show - BBC1 Sport Relief where classified as a TV Personality by the BBC he joined an all celebrity Team to represent his country http://www.bbc.co.uk/sportrelief/news/2012/first-nation-home-launch.shtml . He has a significant fan base interest in him / his methods, evidenced on social media and google searches. Through looking at his own website under media http://robedmond.com/media.aspx it is clear that there are a number of offline sources which suggest and support notable interest in this person, significant articles about him in the wider media - national news papers, such as The Sun, magazines such as FHM. Radio and TV chat shows. The guy seems to regularly appear in the media being chosen to provide expert comment in his field. The reference to inclusion of his agent being mentioned and linked - I would agree if the agent was not notable himself and if the connection was not interesting but the agent in question is widely regarded as one of the most controversial and famous in his field himself having a wikipedia page, that this agent also represents Rob Edmond is an notable connection. The reference to Media Personality, as per my above comments and links he meets the criteria of celebrity albeit a low tier one, but never the less a celebrity, the BBC highlighted him as a celebrity and searches show him being classified as a celebrity by a high number of sources including established media - a simple google search of his name including the word 'celebrity' reveals this. I am new to wiki and I am a fan of this person which is why I have commented here but that does not change the actual facts, which show clearly he is a notable person worthy of inclusion. I am sure I may have missed additional aspects/reasons and an experienced editor could add other supporting arguments for Keep. Acbingham ( talk) 13:55, 20 December 2013 (UTC) — Acbingham ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Acbingham ( talk) 14:54, 21 December 2013 (UTC) — Acbingham ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:41, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:41, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:42, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:42, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:43, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Vanity article. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:57, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete. Mere appearances in shows and celebrity teams, other Wiki pages, having a fan base, etc. are not claims of notability. Really needs independent, significant coverage from reliable sources. ~
Amatulić (
talk) 05:49, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
- Hi, do you think then additional sources need to be added to the page and it needs modification, to delete it without a proper look into the page subject and reliable sources may be a bit harsh? The claims of notability are already backed up by sources on the page and this was not used as an argument for deletion. But the page can be backed up with more sources, again anyone doing a quick due diligence search shows this. As a quick search for example finds The Biggest Loser Cookbook which he has contributed to and appears in. This is a widely distributed book by Hamyln and sold a high number of copies in its field. Another example is a full page article on him in the highest circulation newspaper in the UK
The_Sun_(United_Kingdom), surely this is a notable newspaper if not then all the wikipedia articles which have used sources as reference it need changing, this article in this paper I had already mentioned above and provided a link to. Let me know your thoughts, it would be a shame to delete when it may be more appropriate to edit which would go with the spirit of wikipedia?
Acbingham (
talk) 13:37, 21 December 2013 (UTC) —
Acbingham (
talk •
contribs) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Yes, if you can add independent sources that show significant coverage, that would help. The sources on the page right now don't show significant coverage, or are not independent of the subject, or are not reliable. The rationale for deletion presented above, however, also suggest that the article is a promotion puff piece that would have to be completely rewritten to fix it, and that is a valid rationale for deletion regardless of notability. ~
Amatulić (
talk) 16:03, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the response. I think some good sources can be added which shows notability and in that case, if the consensus shows that it is a puff piece then it should be cleaned up, which looking at the size of it would be a quick and simple process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acbingham ( talk • contribs) 14:56, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, if you can add independent sources that show significant coverage, that would help. The sources on the page right now don't show significant coverage, or are not independent of the subject, or are not reliable. The rationale for deletion presented above, however, also suggest that the article is a promotion puff piece that would have to be completely rewritten to fix it, and that is a valid rationale for deletion regardless of notability. ~
Amatulić (
talk) 16:03, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
- Hi, do you think then additional sources need to be added to the page and it needs modification, to delete it without a proper look into the page subject and reliable sources may be a bit harsh? The claims of notability are already backed up by sources on the page and this was not used as an argument for deletion. But the page can be backed up with more sources, again anyone doing a quick due diligence search shows this. As a quick search for example finds The Biggest Loser Cookbook which he has contributed to and appears in. This is a widely distributed book by Hamyln and sold a high number of copies in its field. Another example is a full page article on him in the highest circulation newspaper in the UK
The_Sun_(United_Kingdom), surely this is a notable newspaper if not then all the wikipedia articles which have used sources as reference it need changing, this article in this paper I had already mentioned above and provided a link to. Let me know your thoughts, it would be a shame to delete when it may be more appropriate to edit which would go with the spirit of wikipedia?
Acbingham (
talk) 13:37, 21 December 2013 (UTC) —
Acbingham (
talk •
contribs) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Redirect to The Biggest Loser (UK TV series) - he's a living person notable for only one thing and it's that. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:59, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
- Redirect per Ritchie. There's no evidence of substantial coverage in reliable sources; it's a mix of trivial mentions in reliable sources and appearances in unreliable sources. I would have said "delete", since this content doesn't belong, but Ritchie makes a good point that it would help to retain this as a bluelink. Nyttend ( talk) 21:51, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
- His website list magazines and newspapers that he's been featured in.
[1] Any of these talk about him outside of the television show?
Dream Focus 20:22, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
- Can see BBC, Bodypower do. He has been an expert contributer to Health Cookbook also shown on your link. Have had a look on the web and can see these links some of which may be relevant -
[2] ,
[3] ,
[4] . Will see what others I can find.
Acbingham (
talk) 13:16, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
- I don't know if any of those are reliable sources. Ilkestoneadvertiser does mention something he did outside of the show. The other two are about the show. Is this just routine coverage though, a famous person did something that got mentioned because they are famous? Google search for site:www.BBC.com "Rob Edmond" shows no results. Please provide links to where he has been interviewed, or talked about, not just the show he is on mentioned.
Dream Focus 15:33, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
- I think it is worth noting that anyone familiar with the specific industry or with the show format will be aware that it is the by far the biggest fitness & health show format in the world. The role he took on has only been done by 3 people before him in the history of the UK show, it is a significant and crucial part of the show format. By nature the show chooses the best in the training field, he will have been chosen and recognised as one of the top experts in his field in the UK, being seen by around 1 in 24 out of the UK population as such and being notable. As the show is such a big deal in training this title of association with the show will follow him round with his ongoing career and media interviews. The Body Power Expo is the largest fitness expo in europe (link shown on his website ref the media link you put in above, it shows his appearance as a guest expert speaker this year and details about his notability training world record holding athletes). Ref the BBC - here is a link which covers BBC coverage, it is a link from their Sport side ref Sport Relief page detailing participants in the show [5] there seems to be newspaper coverage of his involvement in this too [6], this is for the other completely different show format which he appeared in. I have found this which shows a good interview, (this link sometimes needs refreshing a couple of times before it engages properly) it is quite detailed about his notable background and career [7] , these have some mention of his work [8] , [9] Acbingham ( talk) 20:37, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
- I don't know if any of those are reliable sources. Ilkestoneadvertiser does mention something he did outside of the show. The other two are about the show. Is this just routine coverage though, a famous person did something that got mentioned because they are famous? Google search for site:www.BBC.com "Rob Edmond" shows no results. Please provide links to where he has been interviewed, or talked about, not just the show he is on mentioned.
Dream Focus 15:33, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
- Can see BBC, Bodypower do. He has been an expert contributer to Health Cookbook also shown on your link. Have had a look on the web and can see these links some of which may be relevant -
[2] ,
[3] ,
[4] . Will see what others I can find.
Acbingham (
talk) 13:16, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete - one consistent apperance on one TV show doesn't normally pass WP:NOTAB, and this article certainly doesn't. All the sources linked by Acbingham go back to a series apperance on one series of one TV show; these are hence secondary sources to support the fact that he appeared, not his notability. Originally a commercial written article, its publicity-spun puff rubbish. Rgds, -- Trident13 ( talk) 00:12, 25 December 2013 (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 redirect to The Biggest Loser (UK TV series). It's a WP:ONEEVENT case, but redirects are cheap and it's a somewhat plausible search term. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 08:04, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
- Rob Edmond ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I don;t think any of this is notable. He has been a trained or various TV program, but that is not notability. For good measure, the article is clearly of a promotional intent, for it takes care to include the name of the agent who represents him. And the key career he is listed as pursuing is that of a "media personality". DGG ( talk ) 01:49, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
- KEEP In line with Wikipedia:Notability_(people) policy demonstrates he is notable - This guy is a presenter of a prime time UK TV programme with over 2.5 million viewers, this is the most famous and popular show format in its field, he took a primary role in the show, appearing on other wiki pages before this new page was written. He seems to be one of the most notable in the UK in his field. There are a good number of sources shown on the page but a large number of other sources can be easily found which meet the criteria set out by wiki to indicate a person to be deemed notable, due diligence search will confirm this. He has appeared again on a different prime time TV show - BBC1 Sport Relief where classified as a TV Personality by the BBC he joined an all celebrity Team to represent his country http://www.bbc.co.uk/sportrelief/news/2012/first-nation-home-launch.shtml . He has a significant fan base interest in him / his methods, evidenced on social media and google searches. Through looking at his own website under media http://robedmond.com/media.aspx it is clear that there are a number of offline sources which suggest and support notable interest in this person, significant articles about him in the wider media - national news papers, such as The Sun, magazines such as FHM. Radio and TV chat shows. The guy seems to regularly appear in the media being chosen to provide expert comment in his field. The reference to inclusion of his agent being mentioned and linked - I would agree if the agent was not notable himself and if the connection was not interesting but the agent in question is widely regarded as one of the most controversial and famous in his field himself having a wikipedia page, that this agent also represents Rob Edmond is an notable connection. The reference to Media Personality, as per my above comments and links he meets the criteria of celebrity albeit a low tier one, but never the less a celebrity, the BBC highlighted him as a celebrity and searches show him being classified as a celebrity by a high number of sources including established media - a simple google search of his name including the word 'celebrity' reveals this. I am new to wiki and I am a fan of this person which is why I have commented here but that does not change the actual facts, which show clearly he is a notable person worthy of inclusion. I am sure I may have missed additional aspects/reasons and an experienced editor could add other supporting arguments for Keep. Acbingham ( talk) 13:55, 20 December 2013 (UTC) — Acbingham ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Acbingham ( talk) 14:54, 21 December 2013 (UTC) — Acbingham ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:41, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:41, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:42, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:42, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:43, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Vanity article. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:57, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete. Mere appearances in shows and celebrity teams, other Wiki pages, having a fan base, etc. are not claims of notability. Really needs independent, significant coverage from reliable sources. ~
Amatulić (
talk) 05:49, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
- Hi, do you think then additional sources need to be added to the page and it needs modification, to delete it without a proper look into the page subject and reliable sources may be a bit harsh? The claims of notability are already backed up by sources on the page and this was not used as an argument for deletion. But the page can be backed up with more sources, again anyone doing a quick due diligence search shows this. As a quick search for example finds The Biggest Loser Cookbook which he has contributed to and appears in. This is a widely distributed book by Hamyln and sold a high number of copies in its field. Another example is a full page article on him in the highest circulation newspaper in the UK
The_Sun_(United_Kingdom), surely this is a notable newspaper if not then all the wikipedia articles which have used sources as reference it need changing, this article in this paper I had already mentioned above and provided a link to. Let me know your thoughts, it would be a shame to delete when it may be more appropriate to edit which would go with the spirit of wikipedia?
Acbingham (
talk) 13:37, 21 December 2013 (UTC) —
Acbingham (
talk •
contribs) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Yes, if you can add independent sources that show significant coverage, that would help. The sources on the page right now don't show significant coverage, or are not independent of the subject, or are not reliable. The rationale for deletion presented above, however, also suggest that the article is a promotion puff piece that would have to be completely rewritten to fix it, and that is a valid rationale for deletion regardless of notability. ~
Amatulić (
talk) 16:03, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the response. I think some good sources can be added which shows notability and in that case, if the consensus shows that it is a puff piece then it should be cleaned up, which looking at the size of it would be a quick and simple process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acbingham ( talk • contribs) 14:56, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, if you can add independent sources that show significant coverage, that would help. The sources on the page right now don't show significant coverage, or are not independent of the subject, or are not reliable. The rationale for deletion presented above, however, also suggest that the article is a promotion puff piece that would have to be completely rewritten to fix it, and that is a valid rationale for deletion regardless of notability. ~
Amatulić (
talk) 16:03, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
- Hi, do you think then additional sources need to be added to the page and it needs modification, to delete it without a proper look into the page subject and reliable sources may be a bit harsh? The claims of notability are already backed up by sources on the page and this was not used as an argument for deletion. But the page can be backed up with more sources, again anyone doing a quick due diligence search shows this. As a quick search for example finds The Biggest Loser Cookbook which he has contributed to and appears in. This is a widely distributed book by Hamyln and sold a high number of copies in its field. Another example is a full page article on him in the highest circulation newspaper in the UK
The_Sun_(United_Kingdom), surely this is a notable newspaper if not then all the wikipedia articles which have used sources as reference it need changing, this article in this paper I had already mentioned above and provided a link to. Let me know your thoughts, it would be a shame to delete when it may be more appropriate to edit which would go with the spirit of wikipedia?
Acbingham (
talk) 13:37, 21 December 2013 (UTC) —
Acbingham (
talk •
contribs) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Redirect to The Biggest Loser (UK TV series) - he's a living person notable for only one thing and it's that. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:59, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
- Redirect per Ritchie. There's no evidence of substantial coverage in reliable sources; it's a mix of trivial mentions in reliable sources and appearances in unreliable sources. I would have said "delete", since this content doesn't belong, but Ritchie makes a good point that it would help to retain this as a bluelink. Nyttend ( talk) 21:51, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
- His website list magazines and newspapers that he's been featured in.
[1] Any of these talk about him outside of the television show?
Dream Focus 20:22, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
- Can see BBC, Bodypower do. He has been an expert contributer to Health Cookbook also shown on your link. Have had a look on the web and can see these links some of which may be relevant -
[2] ,
[3] ,
[4] . Will see what others I can find.
Acbingham (
talk) 13:16, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
- I don't know if any of those are reliable sources. Ilkestoneadvertiser does mention something he did outside of the show. The other two are about the show. Is this just routine coverage though, a famous person did something that got mentioned because they are famous? Google search for site:www.BBC.com "Rob Edmond" shows no results. Please provide links to where he has been interviewed, or talked about, not just the show he is on mentioned.
Dream Focus 15:33, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
- I think it is worth noting that anyone familiar with the specific industry or with the show format will be aware that it is the by far the biggest fitness & health show format in the world. The role he took on has only been done by 3 people before him in the history of the UK show, it is a significant and crucial part of the show format. By nature the show chooses the best in the training field, he will have been chosen and recognised as one of the top experts in his field in the UK, being seen by around 1 in 24 out of the UK population as such and being notable. As the show is such a big deal in training this title of association with the show will follow him round with his ongoing career and media interviews. The Body Power Expo is the largest fitness expo in europe (link shown on his website ref the media link you put in above, it shows his appearance as a guest expert speaker this year and details about his notability training world record holding athletes). Ref the BBC - here is a link which covers BBC coverage, it is a link from their Sport side ref Sport Relief page detailing participants in the show [5] there seems to be newspaper coverage of his involvement in this too [6], this is for the other completely different show format which he appeared in. I have found this which shows a good interview, (this link sometimes needs refreshing a couple of times before it engages properly) it is quite detailed about his notable background and career [7] , these have some mention of his work [8] , [9] Acbingham ( talk) 20:37, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
- I don't know if any of those are reliable sources. Ilkestoneadvertiser does mention something he did outside of the show. The other two are about the show. Is this just routine coverage though, a famous person did something that got mentioned because they are famous? Google search for site:www.BBC.com "Rob Edmond" shows no results. Please provide links to where he has been interviewed, or talked about, not just the show he is on mentioned.
Dream Focus 15:33, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
- Can see BBC, Bodypower do. He has been an expert contributer to Health Cookbook also shown on your link. Have had a look on the web and can see these links some of which may be relevant -
[2] ,
[3] ,
[4] . Will see what others I can find.
Acbingham (
talk) 13:16, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete - one consistent apperance on one TV show doesn't normally pass WP:NOTAB, and this article certainly doesn't. All the sources linked by Acbingham go back to a series apperance on one series of one TV show; these are hence secondary sources to support the fact that he appeared, not his notability. Originally a commercial written article, its publicity-spun puff rubbish. Rgds, -- Trident13 ( talk) 00:12, 25 December 2013 (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.