Alex O'Connor: He hosts a podcast that has interviewed many notable people, but on Wikipedia notability is not inherited.  The best independent, secondary coverage I can find of O'Connor himself in a WP:BEFORE search is the Oxford Mail story about Hitchens walking out on him during a podcast, but this amounts to WP:BLP1E.  The rest of what I can find is all WP:PRIMARY, including YouTube clips of him appearing on GB News, Uncensored , this clip on Daily Caller of Hitchens walking out, etc.  Wikishovel ( talk ) 00:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics , Religion , Internet ,  and England .  Wikishovel ( talk ) 00:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : No coverage used in the article now in RS and I can only find coverage in Catholic Answers, which I'm not sure is a RS and likely somewhat biased.  Agree that the rest of the sources are primary.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 00:21, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Doesn't seem to have a claim to notability, either in anything he's done in the coverage he's received.  BottleOfChocolateMilk ( talk ) 02:39, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The sources are often primary, but they are better than no sources at all.  There will probably be more non-primary sources that will come along in the future as well. -- Los Perros pueden Cocinar ( talk ) 07:27, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Sources are not sufficient, and nothing sufficiently independent and reliable is available.  Certainly the subject works with many notable people, but he himself has not generated sufficient secondary sources.  As for the above comment, better sources may or may not appear in the future.  It is of course possible that this is a case of WP:TOOSOON , but we cannot include this as a factor in our current discussion.  Heavy Grasshopper ( talk ) 11:54, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - This is a case of WP:TOOSOON .  The subject is poised to achieve notability according to Wikipedia's standards in the near future.  Hitro talk 15:21, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I have found another reputable, secondary source convering his controversy with Hitchens.  In addition, I would dispute the idea that notability is not inherited in this context.  Alex O'Connor is an interviewer.  An interviewer's notability should be, at least in part, determined by the notability of the people he has interviewed.  Also, there are a number of primary sources that take the form of interviews on other news outlets and podcasts.  These, despite being primary sources, still indicate that the subject is notable enough to be chosen for an interview by the likes of Piers Morgan, Jordan Peterson, and more.  There are also several secondary sources from religious magazines and news websites that can contribute to his notability, although they may have a reputability issue.  FaunuX ( talk ) 20:09, 29 May 2024 (UTC) — FaunuX ( talk • contribs ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  [ reply ] Please see WP:BASIC , which explains that on Wikipedia, " Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject. " What's the new secondary source please?  Wikishovel ( talk ) 20:20, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] [32] https://dailycaller.com/2023/10/12/enjoy-society-commentator-interview-death-drug-decriminalization-peter-hitchens/ FaunuX ( talk ) 22:20, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If you'd like the religious sources as well, there's [33] https://5pillarsuk.com/2020/05/23/prominent-atheist-youtuber-refuses-to-apologise-for-somali-women-in-bags-slur/ https://www.premierchristianity.com/opinion/dawkins-dodges-a-debateagain/17078.article [34] https://www.catholic.com/audio/cot/821-the-lesson-to-learn-from-matt-dillahuntys-rage-quit , all of which reference Alex O'Connor in some way.  Additionally, to quote wikipedia guidelines on interviews with regards to notability , "if the material the interviewer brought to the table is secondary and independent, contributes to the claim that the subject has met the requirements laid out in the general notability guideline".  In the case of many of Alex O'Connor's interviews, the subject of the interview is something along the lines "Alex's views on TOPIC".  If a reputable journalist does an interview with the subject of Alex O'Connor's views, then this would contribute to the notability of Alex O'Connor's views, and by extension the notability of Alex O'Connor.  FaunuX ( talk ) 22:52, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks for hunting for secondary sources.  I actually mentioned that same Daily Caller source in the nomination above, in the sense of "this is all we've got", because Daily Caller is a deprecated source on Wikipedia: please see WP:DAILYCALLER .  Regarding the religious news sites, 5pillarsuk.com is a news blog, and I could find nothing on their site about editorial oversight etc.  Premier Christianity and Catholic Answers appear to be WP:Reliable sources , but the Premier article is about Richard Dawkins, with O'Connor only mentioned a few times as the interviewer.  The Catholic Answers article is a panel discussion about Matt Dillahunty, and O'Connor is again only mentioned a few times during the course of the discussion.  What's needed is what I failed to find: solid coverage of O'Connor himself, in reliable sources.  Wikishovel ( talk ) 08:30, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Oh, my apologies.  Did you see my second paragraph about how, as per wikipedia guidelines, interviews can contribute to notability?  FaunuX ( talk ) 15:05, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes thanks, but I'll defer to other editors on that.  Wikishovel ( talk ) 15:50, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom - a review of the sources shows the sources fail WP:GNG , not secondary or sigcov.  SportingFlyer T · C 18:28, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : A celebrity can be famous but not significantly covered in newspapers if not blog.  The State of the article doesn't meet WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV .  Safari Scribe Edits!  Talk!  11:08, 3 June 2024 (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.

Discussion outcome: delete