Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geoffrey Bell (broadcaster)

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:08, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Geoffrey Bell (broadcaster)

Non-notable TV cameraman and presenter. A search for reliable sources has turned up plenty but they are all either about Geoff Bell (actor) or Geoffrey Bell businessman - even the New Zealand Herald piece cited in the article doesn't actually mention him. Article has been extensively edited in the past 24 hours by the subject, apparently at the behest of his agent[1] although of course this is not in itself a reason for deletion but it does suggest an element of self-promotion. Nancy ^talk 21:07, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Have you tried coaching the person in question? If it really is the subject himself, he'd be the one to know where to find references about him without running into articles about people with similar names... - Mgm|^(talk) 23:49, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: A lot of time, a person attempts to explain what his/her work or notability is about. Often this is taken for self promoting. However, this is not always the case as the person may simply be attempting to explain a concept, work or achievement unknown to the editor or reviewer. This is why I believe that only people knowledgeable in the specific field should edit a work. Hopefully this total freedom on Wikipedia will change. However, there is a need for good references and proof that the person is notable to others (a large marketing group). Keep, only if improved. Royalhistorian (talk) 05:17, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - as I said in the nomination, self-promotion is not itself a reason to delete. I had initially set-out to "rescue" the article & provide proper cites but was thwarted in my endeavours as I could not find any WP:RS, hence the decision to nominate for not meeting WP:ENTERTAINER. Nancy ^talk 15:02, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:28, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:28, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:28, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I cannot find any evidence of notability in news archives. Ryan Paddy (talk) 20:53, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Self -promotion is not, in itself, a reason to delete, but I do not think that this person meets the notability criteria, and can't find reliable sources to indicate otherwise. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:44, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete admitted COI and spam like behaviors. β^_command 23:43, 24 December 2008 (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.