Deletion of Rob Young (broadcaster)

Comment: I’m willing to change my stance if someone can provide some ''valid'' sourcing showing the subject meets the , but so far, there’s nothing remotely close to that. We need third party sourcing covering the subject in significant detail. Nothing presented here or in the article does this. All that’s been presented here is sourcing written ''by the subject'', passing mentions, vague allusions to “google it”, and suggestions to “just hang some citation needed” tags on it, none of which are valid rationales for a keep at an AFD, especially for a 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:BLP)

Comment: He works for the BBC and doesn't own the BBC website, unless he wrote an article, or the source is him speaking then other BBC sources are secondary sources in retrospect. He is very well known for those that follow business news and BBC threads, I see  satisfied and then some. And why on earth are you saying BBC is not a reliable source, that what the nominators rationale is, that's wrong, it's one of the most respect news services on the planet
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Yet #3 and #4 cover  rather than the first two of '''Creative professionals'''. People really need to ignore the first two rules, Other people are quoting Young's work on twitter and noting his comments in their own writing. Young has created how many podcast shows for the BBC, been on the news how many times? That's covered by #3 in a way, however Journalists do the quoting, write the stories, ask the questions report the news. These aspects need to be applied, instead of this dogmatic perception that other people will write about him
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:JOURNALIST)

Comment: The reason there are criteria other than  for notability is that not all professionals who are notable "receive significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject". As
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BASIC)

Comment: I do not know why the editor who analyzed sources chose to analyze only the first few sources. They are indeed linked to the person's employer. However, the later sources are not, eg Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Routledge and the ''Evening Standard''. We are not judging the placement of references in the article. I do not agree that  is not a get-out clause of  or the  - profession-specific criteria are added because, as the section on Academics states, they may be "notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources". So to me the question is whether this person meets 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:JOURNALIST||WP:GNG||WP:BASIC||WP:JOURNALIST)