Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Rusling

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. ✗plicit 23:37, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Rusling

[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)

No sources, no claim to notability, promotional autobiography. Nothing to establish notability in a quick WP:BEFORE. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:48, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. There is nothing in the article to show that WP:N is met. Mjroots (talk) 17:26, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No citations. The 17 links are all inappropriate external links (per WP:EXTLINKS). The two main editors of the page are likely the subject himself, PaulRusling and RadioMann, and both are single-purpose accounts. Also delete the two redirects Rusling, Paul and Paul Alexander (broadcaster). Platonk (talk) 17:26, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The links in the bio do nothing to establish notability per Wikipedia standards, and Google finds nothing of any significance either. Promotional fluff. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:36, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note - There is a writeup on the talk page (Talk:Paul Rusling) about the participants on this article. Platonk (talk) 17:45, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is astonishing that this article has survived for 12 years. (It was suggested that it should be deleted as far back as 2009, but the suggestion wasn't followed up.) None of the external links (which are the only kind of citation to any source) is anything like the kind of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources needed as evidence of notability, and much of the content isn't sourced at all. It is also significantly promotional. JBW (talk) 19:39, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:39, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:39, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:39, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; article's subject does not seem to meet WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG. Miniapolis 22:47, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete neither the existing links nor what I found via BEFORE establish notability. Star Mississippi 00:03, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone else. RobinCarmody (talk) 01:07, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Platonk. -- Asartea ^Talk ^| ^Contribs 13:48, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and per WP:SNOW. dudhhr_Contribs 19:59, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm uncertain which areas one makes a response in, the page seems to be a programmers playground and Im not familiar with a lot of the acronyms and codes, being only a poor lowly writer (albeit one with a long history of published articles and books).

The sudden avalanche of 'delete' requests about my Wikipedia entry was a surprise. It seems to be linked to a flurry of complaints on the Radio Caroline Wiki-page, where one individual is attempting to rewrite history, and is busy ammending Wiki files. I may be collateral, as I wrote a book called the Radio Caroline Bible, which was republished, just days earlier. A lone detractor tried to suppress publication, and rewrote the Radio Caroline page on Wiki; I emphasise that I have not participated in that battle but am pleased to see its restored and the 'agitator' has been banned.

My own entry meets the fundamental principles of the 'Five Pillars'. I understand its inclusion as it DOES meet the requirements of ANY:BIO (in three countries) and the 'notable' requirements of significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other and independent of the subject. The links to published works such as books are all factual books Ive written, about radio. These are histories of various radio stations, (Caroline & Laser) and on topics of radio, such as programming, format and technical nature. These are all non-fiction, factual and not about views or opinions. For some titles I am acting as editor, rather than actual writer.

I check the Wikipedia page for malicious tampering at least once a year, but am aware that it is consulted by others, in the true use of Wikipedia as a digital encyclopaedia. Its certainly not there as a vehicle for self-promotion, but to disseminate useful information that is verifiable, unique and likely to be of interest.

As a regular researcher, I'm always grateful that the Wiki army of volunteers has not only assembled such as wide collection of links and background facts, but that many wiki-editors tend the files to ensure the highest standards are followed. If the edits I have made to my own entry are inappropriate I am delighted for them to be amended, but feel the site is denuded if facts about my work are stripped out for no real reason.

Thanks for everyone's time on this. Paul Rusling PaulRusling (talk) 15:01, 11 November 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PaulRusling (talk • contribs) [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.