Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Felix (3rd 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 redirect to Most Haunted#Former team members. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:39, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Felix

[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)

Non-notable person... article was apparently created as a self-promotional resume. References are press releases reported by local newspapers. They do not satisfy WP:RS. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 21:40, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:02, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:02, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:02, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I shalln't !vote as I must declare a WP:COI as I know this individual slightly from my time working at Derby Museum, and am well aware of what my professional colleagues thought of his reputation for historical accuracy! Brilliant at self-promoting Derby's history, he did become a minor personality on a paranormal TV programme. However I see little in the sources which show in depth coverage of the person, despite lots and lots of articles in which he appears. If the outcome were not to keep it, I might have thought that redirect to Most Haunted would certainly be more appropriate than any decision to simply delete. Nick Moyes (talk) 12:16, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep or Redirect: Here is a less local source by BBC about (presumably) the subject: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-derbyshire-35482708. While there might not be all that many reliable sources out there (based on my online search, anyway), he did appear in 119 episodes of Most Haunted. So, if the consensus seems to be that the subject doesn't pass the notability standards, I think redirecting to Most Haunted, as suggested by Nick Moyes, would be a viable option. Dflaw4 (talk) 15:25, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think redirect would be a perfect solution. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 20:13, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I wouldn't have a problem with that, Catfish. Dflaw4 (talk) 05:23, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to Most Haunted. Doesn't appear to be notable on his own, nearly all the coverage (including sources used to derive early life information) appears driven by his appearances on Most Haunted, which has its own page. It doesn't seem like there's enough independent coverage of just him to justify his own page, at present. Shelbystripes (talk) 22:05, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Redirect to Most Haunted#Former team members. Does not pass WP:BASIC, there's a fair quantity of hits but none of the coverage is significant/in-depth even the BBC reference is nothing more than casual, and certainly insufficient by itself. I think redirecting to the former member section makes more sense so searchers immediately see what they were looking for even though he is mentioned in other areas in the article. I don't see deletion as a huge negative since I strongly suspect the very next search made upon hitting that dead end would be for Most Haunted since that's what he is known for, but redirects are cheap, and it's a reasonable target, so by a narrow margin is preferred in this case. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 03:45, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Most Haunted#Former team members: not independently notable. --Slashme (talk) 09:04, 14 February 2020 (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.