Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben Burrell

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. It seems like while independent sources do exist, consensus appears to be that they are all namechecks/passing comments. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:42, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Burrell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Article seems to be possible self-promotion, with information that only hardcore fans would know. Most sources point towards programme pages, with the exception of a few. - Funky Snack (Talk) 20:56, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 21:29, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 21:29, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I've removed the content that could have been argued led towards self-promotion and added references from independent sources. There is now no reason for this article to be deleted. 18:07, 18 May 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rillington (talk • contribs) 18:07, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable I think. Although on a network station, not enough reliable sources. Most only have a passing comment. 82.132.212.230 (talk) 19:17, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Radio personalities, even on major radio networks, are not automatically guaranteed Wikipedia articles just because their own self-published content, on their own website and the website of their employer, technically verifies that they exist — the notability test is the reception of reliable source coverage about him in sources that don't sign his paycheque. But the only such sources on offer here are just glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage of other people, not coverage about him. Bearcat (talk) 13:49, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.