Deletion of Phil Parry

Comment: I would like to echo Capewearer's comments above about . I was pretty horrified at the state of this article when it was originally named The Eye Wales, as it was clearly breaking . Martin's keen obsession with Phil and Phil-related articles and arguments has made me repeatedly raise questions about his identity and whether there is a  re many of the edits on this article. He has strongly denied it so at best I can only assume he is a close former colleague. All that said, I would like to keep this article on the basis that Phil is indeed a notable journalist. His CV and the (rare) sources with his name attached to major broadcasts are probably just about enough. But I would '''heavily caveat''' my Keep vote with the fact we need to keep this article independently sourced and stop it becoming a channel for Phil or his supporters to voice their dislike for other journalists, or those they are investigating. If his blog is the reputable investigatory outlet he says it is, then I'm sure his work will speak for itself. It does not need to be amplified and 'marketed' here or at other articles like Nation.Cymru as Martin has attempted to do. This cannot be an article solely for the purpose of selling The Eye Wales and its work. I am also raising a discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#The_Eye_Wales as I don't believe the content of The Eye is suitable for referencing on Wikipedia. Much of it is very tangential nonsense, Phil's past work aside
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Assume good faith (WP:AGF||WP:ADVERT||WP:CONFLICT)