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 no consensus. ( WP:NPASR) ( Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica ¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:49, 28 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Robin Stummer

Robin Stummer (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

Seems to be a largely non-notable journalist, written in promotional style. Only semi-notable thing seems to be founding magazine Cornerstone which went bust two years ago (after only lasting two years) [1]. -- Legis ( talk - contribs) 03:31, 4 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica ¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:07, 5 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica ¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:07, 5 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica ¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:07, 5 October 2014 (UTC) reply

• What is the reason for bringing this to AfD?  WP:NOT?  WP:N?  A "largely non-notable journalist" sounds like the same thing as a notable journalist.  A promotional style is a problem in how the material is being presented, not the WP:NOT issue WP:PROMOTION.  What about the books seen on the first page using WP:BEFORE?  The first snippet reads, "One person whose detailed critical reporting on HS2 was suddenly and inexplicably cut short was the journalist Robin Stummer, although there is no evidence of Westbourne's involvement. Stummer was the founder of a specialist heritage ..."  Unscintillating ( talk) 02:13, 6 October 2014 (UTC) reply
• Comment. Not proposing to comment on my own AfD nomination (except to confirm, yes, it was WP:NOT), but just flagging up that the page's creator left various comments defending on the article on the talk page to this AfD page. Copying it across here just for whatever it adds to the debate:

This contribution has been edited since original posting, and fully complies with Wiki guidance on acceptable content. The contribution is not promotional. It has no promotional or commercial aspect in any way. It is a factual account of the work and specialism of a journalist who, far from being 'non-notable', has worked on quality British newspapers for a quarter of a century, breaking many stories, and whose work is known around the world. LEGIS, apparently a lawyer, is factually incorrect about Cornerstone magazine, which, it appears clearly, was highly successful throughout its existence; it never "went bust". On the contrary, it seems that it was exceptionally successful in all aspects, including its commercial standing. Indeed, the title was extremely successful throughout its existence. A name change took place in 2012, as can be easily seen online. It is now entitled SPAB Magazine. LEGIS is also grossly incorrect in stating that the magazine lasted only two years. As can be easily seen online, Cornerstone was founded in 2004, and its name changed in 2012. That is eight years. It is hard to understand why LEGIS is making these basic errors. This Wiki article is fully in keeping with equivalent articles currently online and viewable, covering several journalist colleagues of Robin Stummer. It is hard to understand why this article submission has been singled out in this way. Perhaps LEGIS can further explain his attitude to this contribution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Bealey3399 ( talk • contribs) 16:20, 4 October 2014‎

There is a response from me on my talk page (although weirdly his comments on my talk page are signed by a different user), but that response really just relates to answering his questions about how the process goes rather than his substantial objections to the AfD. -- Legis ( talk - contribs) 06:55, 6 October 2014 (UTC) reply

• I think that is a laudable idea.  I think the quality of AfD would quickly improve if nominators relied on making their case in the nomination argument.  Unscintillating ( talk) 23:48, 7 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica ¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:10, 13 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica ¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:41, 21 October 2014 (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.