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. Borderline keep consensus but I think more a no consensus after multiple listings, could use some expansion but for now defaulting to the status quo. James of UR (talk) 19:55, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Leon Emirali[edit]

Leon Emirali (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable, fails GNG. Mooonswimmer 01:46, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:55, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I am arguing that the page should be kept. The article features a number of verifiable and reliable sources that provide significant coverage around Emirali or what he has said/done (PR Week, The i, Spear's Magazine etc). All of the sources are independent of the subject (barring The Times and City AM to demonstrate Emirali has written for these publications).

Though some of the sources are behind paywalls (PR Week), WP:Verifiability states that "sources shouldn't be rejected because they are difficult or costly to access".

The sources in the article also demonstrate the subject has attracted attracted attention over a sufficiently significant period of time WP:Sustained. The oldest article referenced was published in 2012 (Coventry Telegraph), the most recent in 2023 (Provoke Media).

There is no suggestion the article does not meet GNG as the sources are reliable, independent, non-self published etc. Given the seniority of who he has advised and regular media presence in UK, the article should be kept. PoliticsDex (talk) 10:11, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Declaration: I have worked on a previous draft of this article. I see no reason why this should be deleted. Sources are secondary, reliable, independent of the subject and provide significant coverage of the subject, in line with WP:GNG. The strongest sources, which the User above refers to are all owned by publishers which "have a professional structure for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments", as per WP:SOURCES. PR Week owned by Haymarket Media Group, The I is owned by DMGT, Spears is owned by Progressive Media International. The User who nominated this article for deletion has not stated how it fails GNG, but if they did perhaps it'd be useful for the purposes of this discussion? JoinFluffy250 (talk) 11:00, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 05:59, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Input from experienced editors would be helpful...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:05, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Looking at the sourcing in the article, the only source that could plausibly be significant is the article from PR Week. When I went to PRWeek, the site says that it epitomizes "the modern business publishing brand, spanning online, print, events and social media, incorporating a paid-for content strategy and gated website." So I am very skeptical that the PR Week article is an actual news article (and is intes paid-for content, or at best a dressed-up press release). The other sources do not contribute (much) to the notability of the subject. --Enos733 (talk) 22:59, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi @Enos733. I want to loop in User:Paul W as an experienced Wikipedia editor who can confirm PR Week is a legitimate source. In an earlier discussion I worked on for this article (it's since been re-submitted by another user), he wrote:

  As a long-time UK-based PR practitioner, I can confirm that PR Week has a good reputation for clearly separating paid-for content and journalist-written editorial (I have even featured in its editorial and opinion pages myself once or twice). Like most news-based periodicals in every walk of life, its journalists will occasionally use content from press releases; at a PR industry event, I heard a past PR Week editor say they get 100s of releases weekly from which they select only a limited number based on what they judge genuinely newsworthy.

  I have made some further edits to the article (adding Wikilinks, and a couple of new sources). From reviewing lots of new articles (I am a New Page Patroller), I think Emirali is borderline notable, but it may be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Paul W (talk) 11:27, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  JoinFluffy250 (talk) 10:02, 24 May 2023 (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.