Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Rose (podcaster) (2nd nomination)

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 WP:SNOW keep. There is no reasonable possibility of a consensus for deletion, particularly given the same outcome in the recent previous deletion discussion. BD2412 T 00:19, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Rose (podcaster)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

I am unsure he is now all that notable, most of the coverage is for an election he lost. Or they are in fact really about other people. Slatersteven (talk) 10:20, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Slatersteven (talk) 10:20, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep An AfD about him less than four months ago was closed as a clear keep. All the citations (and more since) are still extant, and he was always going to be a losing candidate in that election. Not seeing any policy-based rationale for this nomination. Edwardx (talk) 10:26, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

wp:news, he only got coverage due to an election he lost (as I said), thus he may fail wp:n as he is really only notable for one event (the election).Slatersteven (talk) 10:30, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NTEMP. We had a recent AfD and agreed he was notable. An article topic that was once notable cannot become not notable. There are multiple citations in the article that predate Rose's mayoral candidacy. The 'keep' decision last time reflected that; we wouldn't have kept the article just because of the mayoral stuff because WP:NPOL. Bondegezou (talk) 10:39, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you take away all the mayoral converge, how much is left that is in-depth about him?Slatersteven (talk) 10:47, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Excluding the mayoral coverage, there is a long, in depth piece about Rose in Vice; the Salon and Press Gazette pieces are not primarily about Rose, but do contain significant coverage of Rose. The Telegraph, CNBC and News-24.fr pieces contain significant coverage of his channel London Real and mention Rose. Bondegezou (talk) 10:58, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So then its his channel that is notable, not him. He is only really notable as a scammer (which we do not even appear to mention) so there is a degree of wp:puffery going on. Slatersteven (talk) 11:06, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in the prior AfD, some coverage focuses more on London Real, so I did wonder if it was better to have an article on that than on Rose. But I think, combined, it makes sense to have a Rose article on his actions (Vice), London Real stuff (including the Icke interview - Press Gazette/Salon/Telegraph/CNBC/News-24.fr) and his mayoral candidacy. Bondegezou (talk) 12:03, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject is good enough to pass WP:GNG. Powerful Karma (talk) 15:11, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. This is the guy from those annoying wall to wall YouTube adverts in the run up to the London Mayoral election. He seems to be just about notable enough for an article and I guess people might want to know who he is if he ever pops up again. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:50, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I am a little confused about the rationale for nomination as he would not be notable in the first place for being a political candidate (see WP:POLITICIAN). The first nomination was decided in February of 2021 with an overwhelming consensus to keep. The subject is notable based on significant coverage in reliable sources. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:54, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for all of the above reasons. Many reliable sources have covered multiple spheres of his life and work, including those outside his political candidacy. Gargleafg (talk) 16:40, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has reliable sources to pass GNG and for all of the above reasons. Grandruskiy48 (talk) 15:52, 25 May 2021 (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.