Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Service

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. Yunshui ^雲_水 10:40, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Service

Tom Service (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)

Non-notable person. Lack of significant coverage of reliable sources. Fails

• Keep. Strange nomination, if you weren’t aware of him even a quick google gives plenty of notable references. Article merely needs improvement, easily passes WP:GNG. Mramoeba (talk) 14:24, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

missfortune 14:33, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

missfortune 14:34, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

missfortune 14:34, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

missfortune 14:34, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

• his author bio at Faber and Faber, his journo profile at The Guardian, a review of his book in The Daily Telegraph proof should it be required that he hosted the BBC3 flagship classical music programme, from the Royal Opera House ...need I go on? Suggest
  WP:SNOWBALL. Mramoeba (talk) 14:35, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Speedy Keep. I've added a couple of refs to bulk the page up a bit, but even a cursory search will reveal that he is one of Britain's foremost classical music journalists. His work at the Grauniad and BBC (R3 and BBC4) alone satisy notability requirements. Mcewan (talk) 16:52, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A person's notability as a radio host cannot be supported by his own staff profiles on the websites of the radio stations he works for, and his notability as a writer cannot be supported by his author bio on the website of his own publisher or his staff profile on the website of the newspaper he wrote for — his notability for either endeavour has to be supported by
  reliable source coverage about him and independent of him: namely, media outlets he doesn't work for publishing news content in which he and his work are the subjects of coverage and analysis. But that's not the type of sourcing being shown here. No prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can source him better than this, but none of the sourcing Mcewan added cuts the mustard at all and nothing claimed in the article is "inherently" notable enough to exempt the sourcing from having to cut mustard. Bearcat (talk) 17:19, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Delete. None of the current references are significant coverage in independent reliable sources to satisfy

WP:ANYBIO, nor could I find any from a web search. Qwfp (talk) 19:16, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

• Speedy Keep. I've added references to reviews of his work from The Daily Telegraph, The Spectator, New Statesman, The Economist and Opera News. Mortee (talk) 20:50, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I'm somewhat gobsmacked - without impugning in any way the good faith of the proposer, or their understanding of the rules - that it is even possible to nominate him. It's obviously not the right venue for me to explore that, but I do wonder if we've got something wrong here in terms of the guidelines. Best to all DBaK (talk) 22:07, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, for clarity I should add that nothwithstanding the above, I feel it's safe now - even though it should have been before - since the extra material was added in today. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 22:12, 9 January 2018 (UTC) [reply]

• Comment I have also added reviews for his second book, information about his 7 years presenting
  The Proms and his documentaries. I agree with the above comment, he is one of Britain’s most highly regarded classical music journalists and presenters, although perhaps this isn’t known outside classical music or maybe even outside the UK. And with respect to Bearcat, as I didn’t make it clear, the links I posted were intended to show he “Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment” without me actually having to go through listing citations for everything mentioned. I am well aware his own staff profile is only used to “to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge”. Mramoeba (talk) 23:22, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep, especially with additions. Well-known broadcaster. Johnbod (talk) 09:33, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keeep – reviewed author, broadcaster, chief classical musical critic for The Guardian, inaugural winner of the Classical Music Critic of the Year Award. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:44, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:07, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:07, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:07, 13 January 2018 (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.