Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Rose (podcaster)

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion


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 keep. Consensus that the topic is notable. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 21:13, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Rose (podcaster)

edit

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

Brian Rose (podcaster) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable in a Wikipedia sense, but perhaps notorious? Coverage is not significant enough to meet notability requirements and looks coat racked to me. It's pretty negative and some users have been trying to white wash. Looks like a run of the mill disinformationist. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:37, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:43, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:44, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:44, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Telegraph is not an RS?Slatersteven (talk) 16:51, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Vice article is explicitly about Rose, not Icke. One BBC piece is about Icke, the other is about Rose. As per Slatersteven, what's wrong with the other sources? Press Gazette, CNBC, News-24.fr etc. are all clearly reliable. OK, WP:RSP says there's no consensus on Salon. The only source that seems dodgy to me is Living Vegan. Bondegezou (talk) 09:17, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Reviewing the citations in the article, we have one long, in depth piece about Rose [1]; a short puff piece about Rose [2], but is it RS?; and three short pieces about Rose [3] [4] [5] on his mayoral campaign. 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. The ITV piece has significant coverage of London Real but does not mention Rose. Politifact, swlondoner, El Confidencial, Deadline and McGill all just mention Rose. The other BBC News piece mentions Rose's Icke interview, but does not mention Rose by name. Vice + Salon + Press Gazette + first BBC News piece + Indy100 seems plenty to satisfy WP:GNG. The mayoral candidacy on its own would fail WP:NPOL. Some of the 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 candidacy (second BBC News piece/Indy100/City AM). Bondegezou (talk) 19:10, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is further coverage of Rose that doesn't add to the article and isn't cited, but demonstrates notability. Being arrested while campaigning was also covered by the Metro and EuroWeekly News, and mentioned by the Local Government Chronicle. Esquire has a piece inspired by Rose, although not really on him. GQ mentioned him. CoinGeek mentioned him. There's a bigger chunk on him in this piece from Fast Company. But beware there are a lot of other Brian Roses in the world, notably Brian Rose (boxer). Bondegezou (talk) 19:23, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Brian Rose is a prospective candidate in the upcoming London Mayoral elections, so I am not surprised to see that an article has been whipped up as potential publicity material. This is not mere cynicism on my part: a couple of determined and eager IP addresses have been editing the 2021 London Mayor election article to add/amend Brian Rose's details. We have to see this article for what it is, a rushed CV padded out with citations, and for me, it's certainly not passing GNG, it certainly borderline fails POLITICIAN and with the context of an upcoming election, there are questions about what this article is being used for - campaigning? If Rose does anything notable at the election, then we can revisit this question. But for now, it's a no. Delete. doktorb wordsdeeds 23:55, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You should withdraw the allegation of promotionalism, Doktorbuk. The article was created by an editor of good standing. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:24, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Doktorbuk, it is certainly not promotional in its current form! You may feel it is accurate to describe it as having begun as a "rushed CV padded out with citations", but that seems an unfair description of what there is now. Bondegezou (talk) 08:03, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Bondegezou Philafrenzy Point taken and accepted. I've scored out that term. doktorb wordsdeeds 09:35, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Just about enough to satisfy the GNG in the sources mentioned above. People don't have to be right to be notable. I think the public would reasonably expect us to have an article about him. Philafrenzy (talk) 13:28, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I started the article, prompted by the discovery that Rose had the second shortest odds (after the strong favourite, Sadiq Khan), in the 2021 London mayoral election, with leading bookmakers including William Hill and Paddy Power. Living in London, and having never even heard of him, as a curious Wikipedian I had to find out more. There is plenty about him online, albeit much in sources of marginal or doubtful reliability. I was subsequently surprised by the level of editing activity, and as usual the article is better for it. I think there is enough in the article to meet WP:GNG. Also created London Real as a redirect to him, as it appears to be very much his personal vehicle. Incidentally, we have articles for several other fringe candidates with longer odds, (see 2021_London_mayoral_election#Other_candidates), such as Piers Corbyn and David Kurten, both also on the COVID/lockdown/vaccine sceptic/conspiracy theorist spectrum. Edwardx (talk) 13:59, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

please delete anything about brian rose — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:B697:2D00:101B:3231:C43:F11 (talk) 22:38, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Was this edit someone changing their !vote or was it vandalism? Bondegezou (talk) 08:54, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like vandalism. The first IP is registered to BT and geolocates to Lewisham, UK; the IP that changed the !vote is registered to AT&T and geolocates to Wisconsin, US. Both are static. I’m reverting it. SK2242 (talk) 09:01, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you’re referring to Count Binface? Anyway, that’s not a good argument to make. See WP:OTHERSTUFF. SK2242 (talk) 19:36, 3 February 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Brian_Rose_(podcaster)&oldid=1198944920"