Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Royall

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 merge to BBC News at Ten. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 09:23, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Royall

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

Fails WP:GNG - lack of substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject and his employer. Rentier (talk) 12:22, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Paul Royall is the editor of the two most watched News programmes in the United Kingdom. He's both cited in and occasionally subject of independent secondary literature on the media, such as here, here, and here. The position is a prominent one, and his appointment received independent media coverage as in here and here.

I'm sure further verifiable sources can be located with more time. This has been listed here very soon after the PROD tag was removed.Landscape repton (talk) 12:49, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to the first argument, notability is not inherited. The three "secondary" sources you listed are not about Paul Royall and as such contribute virtually nothing to establishing notability. As for the news about his appointment, I consider them a rehash of the BBC's press release, which also contributes very little. Rentier (talk) 07:20, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 13:46, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 13:46, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:09, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:09, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to BBC News at Ten. There's some info on him but I'm not seeing enough to establish notability (although I've focused on newspapers, not specifically searched specialist press) - you'd expect some profiles of major BBC figures, but aside from Press Gazette I couldn't find any. One problem is that the BBC ,which would be a major news source for other stories, can't be classed as independent. --Colapeninsula (talk) 08:53, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to BBC News at Ten – Sources abound that provide quotes from the subject or cover what he has said, but not finding much in terms of biographical coverage, although a bit exists, such as [1]. Does not appear to meet WP:BASIC at this time. A merge will improve the BBC News at Ten article, which presently has only a 7-word sentence about the subject, as per WP:ATD-M. Also a valid search term, as per WP:ATD-R. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:15, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to BBC News at Ten per WP:NOTINHERITED. He's not independently notable aside from the programme. I declined the PROD as I believed deletion would be controversial, not because I thought he passed WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:30, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect since he's currently mentioned there so there's no need to merge-template anything since this would inevitably lead to the same result. SwisterTwister talk 04:51, 20 July 2017 (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.