Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Journalism: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 2: Line 2:
==Journalism==
==Journalism==
<!-- New AFD's should be placed on top of the list, directly below this line -->
<!-- New AFD's should be placed on top of the list, directly below this line -->
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aamir Peerzada}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emily Tamkin}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emily Tamkin}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Andrew_Kirtzman_(2nd_nomination)}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Andrew_Kirtzman_(2nd_nomination)}}

Revision as of 20:02, 30 March 2021

Deletion Sorting
Project

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Journalism. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Journalism|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
Note that there are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Journalism.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.


Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Purge page cache watch

Journalism

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 to delete. All the !votes were to keep, though most were just barely persuaded on this. BD2412 T 04:23, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aamir Peerzada

Aamir Peerzada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Apart from Ref 6, BBC, which is a podcast i don't see any other WP:RS for SIGCOV. Plus the article was created by the subject himself as per Talk Page. If NAWARD is considered he has won an award, but as per NAWARD it's a failed proposal, So putting it up here at AfD. -- Jammumylove Talk to me or CHECK MY RECENT WORK 20:02, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. -- Jammumylove Talk to me or CHECK MY RECENT WORK 20:02, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:12, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep: The weakest of week keep. First of all, this person works for BBC[1]. So I think the BBC reference cannot be considered as an independent source here. He can be considered notable if we are considering WP:ANYBIO as the subject is a winner of notable award in journalism. But there is no significant coverage as of now. If someone can come up with WP:THREE, I will change my vote. Kichu🐘 Need any help? 04:26, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Here is an interview with him, which does discuss the awards he's won, though I've been told interviews do not establish notability, which has always seemed odd since why would someone want to talk to someone they didn't think was notable to discuss their thoughts, work, etc. Here is coverage of him getting one of the awards. Primary source for the award, though that doesn't work on notability. This source discusses him getting the award as well, but I have doubts about the reliability, but this seems a bit more reliable. This covers the Red Ink award, and is more coverage. It's hard to find more coverage since searches for his name bring up news stories he's worked on, but I think he's over the bar with the awards and the coverage of the awards. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:01, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jammumylove I'm working off GNG. Coverage of different events in multiple independent reliable sources. Those events just happen to be getting awards, but secondary sources saw fit to cover it in depth, therefore it's notable by our standards. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:44, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Jammumylove, I had told you in several discussions that you dont need to consider NAWARD. We have something called ANYBIO. As per the one criteria in ANYBIO People are likely to be notable if he/she has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times. Please make sure you remeber this, next time while you nominate an article for AFD and please dont come up with the argument that NAWARD is a failed proposal in inappropriate places. Regards. Kichu🐘 Need any help? 05:24, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kashmorwiki, I Don't think an award makes you notable, And even if it does the correct policy to address the award would obviously be WP:NAWARD and not WP:ANYBIO. And if WP:NAWARD states that it's a failed proposal how would the same policy written in ANYBIO work? Set up an RfC if you have issues with me nominating article's for deletion on the basis of awards. Also how is AfD an inappropriate place? This is a deletion ' Discussion '. Hope you understand the meaning of word ' discussion ' . Also kindly stop replying to queries if i'm addressing them to someone else. -- Jammumylove Talk to me or CHECK MY RECENT WORK 05:48, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jammumylove, if you think winning a reputed award does not make anyone notable, go to the talk page of WP:ANYBIO, propose the changes you would like make and reach consensus. Until then, you have to follow the guidelines regarding our notability. And I have never said that I have any issues with you nominating articles for deletion. I noticed that you always come with the argument NAWARD. So I politely requested you to stop it. But you are taking this as personal. This is a discussion and not your talk page. So I have the right to reply to anyone. So please try to be little bit more civil. Regards. Kichu🐘 Need any help? 05:58, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Kashmorwiki, And i noticed you always come up with WP:ANYBIO. Please eloborate the point of Policy WP:NAWARD if it is totally useless as per you. It shouldn't exist right? This is not a PA, might be rude because you keep on repeating the same thing everytime. I'd ask you to put up an RfC for the same because as per my knowledge of policies i would definitely follow WP:NAWARD for anything related to awards, and not ANYBIO. -- Jammumylove Talk to me or CHECK MY RECENT WORK 06:01, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Jammumylove, I think you have no idea about a failed proposal. The proposed NAWARD has no consensus as of now. So there is no point of you coming up with that. Your argument that winning a notable award does not makes anyone notable is totally ridiculous. See this Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/R. C. Bhargava. This article was kept only because he won a significant national award. And I was the person who rescued it by coming up with this WP:ANYBIO. I still dont get what you are trying to prove here. I am arguing with an accepted proposal which you claim to have no significance. My vote here was weak keep. Because I think this award he won is not that much significant when compared to others. Also there is not that much sigcov. Somebody please help this user regardjng our notbility guidelines. Kichu🐘 Need any help? 06:13, 1 April 2021 (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.
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. Eddie891 Talk Work 21:44, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Tamkin

Emily Tamkin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable journalist. There is a more detailed draft which also does not establish biographical notability. This article cannot be moved to draft space, but the draft can be kept if this article is deleted. Neither this article nor a naïve Google search shows significant coverage by independent sources. Naïve Google search shows that she has written a biography of George Soros. We knew that, and it does not establish notability as an author. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:27, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:27, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:27, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:27, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:27, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:AUTHOR, Tamkin does not appear to have "created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work," and I have only found reviews from Kirkus and Publishers Weekly, which were in the article, and this does not appear to be the necessary "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews," and similarly, per WP:JOURNALIST, there appears to be evidence that she is a journalist, but not that she meets the guideline, and it does not appear she has received WP:BASIC secondary coverage in multiple independent and reliable sources. Beccaynr (talk) 00:55, 31 March 2021 (UTC) Strike !vote per pburka's comment. Beccaynr (talk) 03:36, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG. Chirota (talk) 17:48, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
* Delete. I agree. --Greysonsarch (talk) 18:12, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, or move to The Influence of Soros. Her book is notable, having been reviewed by Kirkus, Publishers Weekly, Times of Israel, Jewish Insider, and The Critic. For sole authors of one notable book, my inclination is to keep the author's page and redirect the book, but the other way around works, too. pburka (talk) 20:52, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've written a short essay about why it's preferable to have an article about the author and a redirect from the title of her notable book. pburka (talk) 22:55, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Kirkus and Publishers Weekly are independent reliable sources. in addition you have coverage, with interview by the Atlantic Council, and Jewish News of Northern California. Hartsseeks (talk) 18:31, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Keeping would mean that notability was inherited from the book, but the book doesn't even have it's article (that's like a negative double whammy for notability). The article on the book can be started independently. It's not immediately clear that the present content would form a satisfactory article on the book, but it is immediately clear that the subject isn't notable on it's own merits. — Alalch Emis (talk) 17:57, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • wp:NAUTHOR - 3: "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Hartsseeks (talk) 18:26, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • So you would support keeping it if we also had an article about her book? If that's your position, I'll be happy to create that page. pburka (talk) 18:51, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:AUTHOR because she has "created [...] a [...] well-known work [...] [that has] been the primary subject of [...] multiple independent periodical articles or reviews; as noted above, this includes Kirkus, Publishers Weekly, and The Times of Israel, which provides additional in-depth context on the book, and The Critic, which also mentions some background on Tamkin as a journalist. Beccaynr (talk) 23:00, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Notability is not inherited. Riteboke (talk) 08:38, 13 April 2021 (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.
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 delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:14, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Kirtzman

AfDs for this article:
Andrew Kirtzman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Recreated not long after being deleted the first time; I don't see any exception activities following the previous deletion that would justify the existence of a new article. BD2412 T 05:38, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:35, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:35, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:35, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The last discussion had dealt primarily with the concern of COI. The coverage is appearing decent to pass WP:GNG.Chirota (talk) 10:56, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-notable journalist and political consultant.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:44, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:28, 7 April 2021 (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.
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 keep. (non-admin closure) Vaticidalprophet 20:20, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Timpone

AfDs for this article:
Brian Timpone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

You know it's a bad sign when a biography does not contain a single reference that names the subject by name. The article was redirected in 2013 (following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Timpone) to LocalLabs, that article was in turn deleted in 2016 after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LocalLabs. In 2019 the biography was recreated, and LL article now directs here, but this biography seems like an attempt to recreat the LL article, as half of the lead is about what his company/companies do. Overall, the biography is impressive (reasonably well research), but it seems to have issues with WP:OR/WP:SYNTH, as WP:SIGCOV. The latter means that it is hard to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. All that said, given the recent coverage like [2], [3] a case could be made that this might be rewritten back into an article about his company, network or the controversy they generated. I think there is something notable here, and his name would make a valid redirect there - wherever that would be, as I am not sure right now. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:03, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:03, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:03, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:03, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PS. I will ping editors involved in the past discussions of this topic: @GeoffreyT2000, Bernice Mosley, HighKing, ApolloLee, Allisoncornish, and DGG:. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:04, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Article content does not determine notability, so if you have suggestions for improving the article, please propose them at Talk:Brian Timpone. — Newslinger talk 07:13, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Newslinger, CTRL+F for his name is not a great metric as some content in the articles is about " Brian Timpone’s brother, Michael Timpone", a CEO of one the relevant companies. All those articles are about the company/network, and while there is some discussion of the subject, is it not the main focus of the articles. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:22, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The 37 mentions of "Timpone" in the New York Times article and the 11 mentions of "Timpone" in the Poynter Institute article are all referring to Brian Timpone, since Michael Timpone is not mentioned in these articles at all. 13 of the 14 mentions of "Timpone" in the Columbia Journalism Review article are about Brian Timpone; only one is about Michael Timpone. I am struggling to understand your claim that the "biography does not contain a single reference that names the subject by name", when there are 61 mentions of Brian Timpone in these three articles alone, not including the use of the "he", "his", and "him" pronouns.
    The assertion that "while there is some discussion of the subject, is it not the main focus of the articles" is inaccurate and severely understates the amount of coverage the articles dedicate to Brian Timpone and his work. Timpone is notable for his work in media, which—according to the reliable sources cited in the Brian Timpone article—has been conducted under a number of company names, including Local Government Information Services (LGIS), Metric Media, Franklin Archer, Locality Labs (formerly known as Journatic and LocalLabs), DirecTech LLC, Interactive Content Services, Newsinator, Blockshopper, and The Record Inc. Many of these companies are not notable on their own, but as an article subject, Brian Timpone has exceeded the requirements in WP:GNG and WP:BASIC by receiving significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources that specifically describe his role in these companies in depth. — Newslinger talk 04:11, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — Newslinger talk 06:46, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. — Newslinger talk 06:46, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are sufficient sources. As Newslinger says, he meets WP:SIGCOV, even if the individual companies don't meet it. tedder (talk) 23:01, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:48, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 02:22, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There seems to be substantial RS coverage of this individual. While most of it isn't about the subject's character, the actions that he's doing and the companies he's creating and being associated with have merited RS coverage. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:38, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because of substantial coverage, but I would also refer his sites to WP:RSN for assessment under WP:RSP. --Minoa (talk) 17:13, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have long been an advocate of keeping BLPs of powerful people. Bearian (talk) 01:21, 19 April 2021 (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.
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 delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:34, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Meagan J. Meehan

Meagan J. Meehan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

GNG fail. Numerous sources are blogs or paid promotion. The movement "conscious perceptualism" does not have a following in reliable sources. --- Possibly (talk) 14:05, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly (talk) 14:05, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly (talk) 14:05, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly (talk) 14:05, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly (talk) 14:05, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly (talk) 14:05, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just had an edit conflict when I also tried to create this AfD. Delete as purely promotional, sources fail verification, no accomplishments that remotely come close to what we expect of a visual artist. No coverage in reputable art-related sources, but promotional media like https://rawartists.com/, http://www.vsopprojects.com/,https://www.entertainmentvine.com/ (where Meehan is a writer, per [4]), https://demouzycontemporary.com/, https://www.artconnect.com/, https://muckrack.com/. Meehan claims to be the inventor of "Conscious Perceptionalism", which is "based solely on the perception of artwork when it is viewed from different angles". Meehan "actually started working within this style as a teenager when [she] realized how cool some of [her] work looked when [she] viewed it from an angle [she] had perceived as ‘upside down.’" Conscious perceptionalism has no practitioners besides Meehan (and possibly her non-notable students). This trademarked movement of Meehan's is nothing new. Georg Baselitz has been making "inverted paintings" since 1969. Vexations (talk) 14:40, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:27, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 17:00, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not pass GNG. Graywalls (talk) 04:34, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I also saw some blogs during my search, but no indication of sufficient independent and reliable sources to support WP:ARTIST or WP:BASIC notability. Beccaynr (talk) 04:11, 31 March 2021 (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.
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 delete. North America1000 01:49, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Natasha Ramsahai

Natasha Ramsahai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. Unable to locate any biographical details in secondary sources. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:41, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:41, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:41, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:22, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As usual, television personalities are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because their existence can be verified through content self-published by their own employers. The notability test requires evidence of significance (e.g. notable professional awards), not just verification of existence. But there are no independent secondary sources here, and even on a ProQuest search for older coverage that might not Google well, I can find just one article that's actually a viable source on the occasion of her initial hiring at Metro Morning 20 years ago — but one good article isn't enough all by itself, and otherwise I'm not getting coverage about her, but transcripts of weather reports by her, which isn't what we're looking for. (Also, the claim that she was Toronto's first female on-air meteorologist is bull droppings, considering that Susan Hay, who was the on-air meterologist at a local television station in my hometown when I was in high school, left that job in 1989 to take a new job as an on-air meteorologist at CIII-TV — and I can't even vouch that Susan Hay was the first either, because I didn't live in Toronto at the time, but she very obviously came before Natasha Ramsahai regardless. Similarly, before I even saw this at all, somebody else stripped a similarly false claim to historic firstness on a different criterion — "first meterologist ever hired by the CBC" — which completely ignored the existence of Percy Saltzman.) Bearcat (talk) 14:54, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I was able to find 2007 Toronto Star coverage with some biographical information, and 2020 Boston Globe coverage with some commentary on her work generally, but this is not sufficient for WP:BASIC or WP:JOURNALIST or WP:NPROF notability. Beccaynr (talk) 18:58, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. She exists, she has a job. But there isn't anything beyond that. Does not meet WP:JOURNALIST. --Kbabej (talk) 23:13, 31 March 2021 (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.
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 delete. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:17, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

George Leef

George Leef (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NBIO -- People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. There are no reliable secondary sources cited in this article at all - every citation is a self-published biography from an organization they worked for, or an article they wrote. A search reveals no substantial sources which would be used here - they simply haven't been biographically discussed. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:54, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I removed all of the primary sources - that leaves literally no sources. This version shows what it was like - a bunch of PR biography blurbs from organizations he worked for, and a bunch of links to articles he wrote. Not a single published secondary source independent of the subject. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:05, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:23, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:23, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Spiderone this is because of WP:NPROF is specifically designed for academics which often are not well covered elsewhere. But in this case it seems that GNG apply and not NPROF. However, here I dont really see a good argument for NPROF here, so in that case GNG would apply. --hroest 17:39, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hannes Röst - hi, you might have intended this comment to be a response to a different user. Thanks Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:48, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
yes, sorry. --hroest 17:50, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The subject's notability is established pretty clearly and in a way not unusual for academics, think tank personnel and journalists. Tillander 13:12, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Then why are no reliable secondary sources cited? If someone is notable, secondary sources will have written about them. The article currently cites nothing but PR blurbs written by organizations he's worked for. Those aren't independent sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:17, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment NorthBySouthBaranof see my comment above, under WP:NPROF no secondary sources are needed. But the question is whether NPROF can apply here. --hroest 17:39, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak delete it seems WP:NAUTHOR would have to apply here or WP:NPROF#8 as the editor of a journal, but it seems this was more of a magazine and not a well regarded academic journal so it will not count. I found very few reviews of his work on JSTOR or Google scholar. Only [5] this review, actually. GS says his book has 15 citations in 16 years which is way too low for WP:NPROF. --hroest 17:49, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 03:00, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 03:00, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The subject is an author published by a traditional publishing house and is an academic often called upon by magazines and newspapers to opine on education topics and current events, as in The Hill, Forbes and The New Yorker. Clearly a notable journalist and academic. Passes WP:GNG. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 21:06, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment none of the articles you linked have more than a passing mention of the subject, eg Forbes "Enter my friend George Leef of the James Martin Center, who told me about some new research by one of America’s foremost labor economists, Edward Lazear of Stanford." and the article is then about Edward Lazear. --hroest 17:42, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In addition to having only a passing mention, the Forbes item is a "contributor" piece and thus should be avoided, per WP:FORBESCON. XOR'easter (talk) 17:03, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The only potential case for notability seems to be through WP:AUTHOR and his two books. I found one published review of one of them (the same one found by hroest) but that's not enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:09, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete basically per David Eppstein. Merely having written does not imply notability; we need evidence that the subject's writings have been influential, and the occasional passing mention doesn't cut it. XOR'easter (talk) 17:08, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
RS PBS News hour referred to him among "vocal and influential public figures". His work has been the primary basis of subsequent academic papers, such as the one in UC Davis Business Law Journal. RS Washington Post referred to him as a "commentator".Nweil (talk) 18:28, 29 March 2021 (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.
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 delete. The weight of policy-based arguments is that this article is not subject, the lone !vote to keep does not provide a policy-based argument for why the subject is notable. Hog Farm Talk 17:46, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clark S. Judge

Clark S. Judge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NBIO - article does not cite any independent secondary sources about this person. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:07, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:22, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:22, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:22, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:22, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep It appears that on Sept. 1, 1988 the President of the United States announced the appointment of the subject of this article to a position in his administration. The press release is already present in the references. I find the suggestion that significant staff members of American presidential administrations might not be note-worthy incredible, and I suggest that the value of Wikipedia as a work of reference would be much diminished if this were to become general practice. Anyone who worked in the White House (in any administration) whose job was important enough to merit a press release surely belongs in Wikipedia in my opinion. Tillander 11:40, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Being a presidential appointee to a minor position is, indeed, not an automatic free pass through WP:NBIO. I ask again - are there any reliable secondary sources to cite about this person? If not, we can't write an article about them. Press releases are not independent secondary sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 12:56, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Mr. Judge's position was not default making him notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:50, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sources are Judge's own works, not works about Judge. Hundreds of people work in the White House at a time, many of which get press releases and it is not a basis for automatic notability. Reywas92Talk 18:36, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There cannot be articles about every person to have ever worked in a presidential administration or even the White House. The question of an individual’s notoriety must be based on what a person themselves has done that is noteworthy, not working near someone else who had achieved WP:NOTEWORTHY status. Go4thProsper (talk) 02:25, 25 March 2021 (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.
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 redirect to List of Indian journalists. While by a pure nose count this might appear a "no consensus", the "keep" arguments do not refute the argument that there is not enough source material available to sustain an article. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:14, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Burhaan Kinu

Burhaan Kinu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The sources are primary and of his own website, the other sources mentioned aren't articles on him rather then article's which have his pictures. He works for Hindustan Times. but it doesn't demonstrate notability. Also there are sources like gettyimages where anyone could upload pictures to. -- Jammumylove Talk to me or CHECK MY RECENT WORK 19:50, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:57, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:57, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:57, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominator’s Comment, as above stated by two editors that this article should be kept just because he has won an notable award. This doesn’t justify or demonstrate his notability. Because WP:NAWARD is a failed proposal. Apart from this award this journalist has no other source to demonstrate his notability, it’s clearly evident from The sources and references on this page. And if this article is kept because of the Award, then the WP:NAWARD page should be updated because it’s misleading. -- Jammumylove Talk to me or CHECK MY RECENT WORK 13:47, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply to nom: Dear nom Jammumylove, I am not saying about WP:NAWARD. I am saying about WP:ANYBIO. Please interpret things properly.Kichu🐘 Need any help? 14:22, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Not enough to have this BLP on WP. Kolma8 (talk) 12:44, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This old article may have COI concerns and needs heavy cleanup. But the subject seems notable while passing WP:GNG. ☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 11:45, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be nice if more !votes address whether the subject meets WP:BASIC and/or WP:GNG instead, perhaps through searching for sources. Skimming over the sources in the article, the deletion rationale does not seem baseless.

Per WP:NBIO#Failing basic criteria but meeting additional criteria, if the subject meets WP: ANYBIO or other additional criteria but fails WP:BASIC or other guidelines to establish notability (such as WP:GNG), it might be more appropriate to merge instead.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 08:23, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Shows notability within local news outlet and some even outer aspects. Not reasonable for quick deletion. Future guides. --203.87.133.197 (talk) 15:18, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the List of Indian journalists. There is no doubt that his work has been acknowledged in journalism, but unfortunately listed sources only shows Image courtesy: Burhaan Kinu at Hindustan Times. I found only one source [6] that talks about the subject independently, but since it is a BLP article, it should be supported by multiple independent RS. Therefore, it be redirect it to Indian journalist list. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 11:40, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, gidonb (talk) 01:44, 8 April 2021 (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.
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 keep. Ignoring the personal attacks and aspersions of editors' motivations, I note that several sources were uncovered that were not refuted by those !voting "delete". Randykitty (talk) 16:23, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Qazi Shibli

Qazi Shibli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Trivial mention in Time, apart from that no other wp:rs, all sources mostly from kashmiri news agencies which are highly manipulated by these journalists. -- Jammumylove Talk to me or CHECK MY RECENT WORK 07:14, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Time never is a trivial mention, and it is not right for you to assume that Kashmir journalists are being manipulated whom I think you should apologize to. As you say on your user page, you edit with a Pro-India sentiment for articles related to Kashmir.--Lohen11 (talk) 07:48, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Shibli was ranked fifth on Time's list (not a local little newspaper) of "10 most urgent threats to press freedom." You want to make the article disappear to deny a reality of this state.--Lohen11 (talk) 11:10, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. -- Jammumylove Talk to me or CHECK MY RECENT WORK 07:14, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Notability requires "multiple" examples of "significant" coverage. A single mention in a listcruft article with no real byline that is clearly a piece of propaganda against American geopolitical enemies doesn't count as significant. Every other source is just reporting on him being jailed or being released. That isn't enough to make him inherently notable as it isn't significant coverage. Macktheknifeau (talk) 07:59, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:15, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:15, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The nominator has a bias regarding articles related to Kashmir as stated on their user page. Seemplez {{ping}} me 09:55, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seemplez, Ive mentioned that i might sometimes ' ' ' edit ' ' ' with a pro indian sentiment, that clearly doesn't mean that i put up these article for deletion because of it. There are 100's and 1000's of other article's out there related to kashmir, if i was biased to kashmiri article's i'd have posted all of them for deletion.I Check thoroughly the article's before putting them up for AfD, If i was biased i could've PRODded or CSD'd them. I am trying to clean up the wikiproject:jammu and kashmir, and clearly i've nominated multiple article's earlier which were unfit for mainspace and hence deleted. Please read WP:NPA and WP:AGF. -- Jammumylove Talk to me or CHECK MY RECENT WORK 10:49, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Jammumylove, this is neither a personal attack nor an assumption of faith. You have disclosed a bias on your user page and I have transcluded it here. Also your point that you don't have a bias because you didn't put every Kashmir related article up for deletion isn't really a point. You have disclosed a bias in editing. Why wouldn't your bias extend to AfD? Seemplez {{ping}} me 11:10, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You have been nominating a lot of Kashmir related articles/articles about Kashmiris today. Seemplez {{ping}} me 11:35, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seemplez, As mentioned i'm trying to clean up the unfit article's. There are plenty of them that don't fit the encyclopaedia 's standard and must be removed or corrected. What's wrong in there? I've done the same earlier as well not just today, check my AfD history. Why are you making it like a PA? -- Jammumylove Talk to me or CHECK MY RECENT WORK 11:49, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seemplez, My Bias wouldn't extend to AfD because i properly write why it just be deleted. i don't give out biased opinions, i state the WP policies. and i am a human as well i make mistakes sometimes while nominating but i immediately rectify them and withdraw my nom. This article clearly has no Significant Coverage and hence i've nom it for AfD. -- Jammumylove Talk to me or CHECK MY RECENT WORK 11:54, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User:Jammumylove, I do not wish to continue this. Happy editing. Seemplez {{ping}} me 12:05, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment By Nominator: By Manipulation of these article's i meant that the source are from local jammu kashmir based media agencies and these journalists can easily get themselves posted on there. There are no proper significant WP:RS. Also this article looks more of an WP:BLP1E i-e Significant for the Arrest of Qazi Shibli. And it can be redirected to it just like Arrest of Kamran Yusuf if not deleted. Also the only WP:RS Time Has no byline. Thanks. -- Jammumylove Talk to me or CHECK MY RECENT WORK 10:58, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Despite having some concerns regarding this subject's notability, I strongly recommend not to have any assumptions like Kashmir journalists are being manipulated. Regards. Kichu🐘 Need any help? 07:19, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Kashmorwiki either read things properly or kindly don’t misinterpret. I’ve clearly written that these kashmiri media houses can be easily manipulated by these journalists. Not what you’re saying.-- Jammumylove Talk to me or CHECK MY RECENT WORK 13:59, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Jammumylove,I havent misinterprated what you said. all sources mostly from kashmiri news agencies which are highly manipulated by these journalists ; this is your comment. You havent said they can be manipulated. You just said they are being manipulated. So its clear who is actually trying to misinterpret the statements. Do you have any evidence to prove your assumption? If dont,please dont make such type of comments in AFD's. Regards. Kichu🐘 Need any help? 14:20, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kashmorwiki, you’ve written that Kashmir journalists are being manipulated and I’ve written all sources mostly from kashmiri news agencies which are highly manipulated by these journalists the difference can be spotted b/w these two by anyone who can read English which I doubt you can’t. -- Jammumylove Talk to me or CHECK MY RECENT WORK 16:19, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Jammumylove, whether it is mostly or leastly or whatever it may be,I just wanted to say that you made up such type of baseless argument in an AFD. And in this encyclopedia, you dont have the right to say that they are manipulated unless you provide reliable sources or any other means as proof. Finally, such type of arguments should not be used in AFD discussions and this encylopedia is not a place to show your Pro india sentiments against its policies. Regards. Kichu🐘 Need any help? 16:34, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kashmorwiki, There’s no way that could prove the internal things with these kashmiri media agencies but being from jammu and kashmir i know how easily jammu and kashmir based media agencies are manipulated. And moreover i never tried to push this as the reason for the AfD, My reason is simple, this article doesn’t have WP:RS and if it has kindly show, or maybe research and add them to this article I’d be happy to withdraw the nom. But until then it’s clearly evident that this article is eligible for AfD, and yes my pro Indian sentiments have nothing to do with this, i never said that kashmiri articles should be deleted for no reason. I have withdrawn many AfD related to kashmir just because they later were improved to be fit on pedia but this one isn’t at this version.-- Jammumylove Talk to me or CHECK MY RECENT WORK 19:07, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Not notable person to have a BLP in WP.Kolma8 (talk) 12:42, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:SIGCOV. Particularly significant is a peer reviewed journal article which focuses on Shibli in more detail: Bilal Ahmad Pandow (September 2020). ""The idea is to kill journalism": Kashmiri journalists on what it's like working under lockdown, an internet blackout and a new draconian media law". Index On Censorship. 49 (3): 17-19. The Time article is also significant and there are other sources which I will list here. See Christian Science Monitor, Mint (newspaper), and "India: Abuses Persist in Jammu and Kashmir". Asia News Monitor. August 5, 2020.. All put together and this meets GNG. Appologies for no urls for some of the sources, but I accessed them through my university library and they are not available for free online. 4meter4 (talk) 01:53, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As stated earlier, the most significant sources are the peer reviewed journal article and the feature in Time. Neither of those are trivial mentions (no matter how much you insist otherwise), and support WP:SIGCOV. The fact that international press in multiple continents is interested enough in this journalist to mention him in context to world events in addition to these two significant sources is enough to satisfy WP:GNG in my opinion. Lastly, you seem to have a WP:POV agenda here which may be impacting your editorial judgment.4meter4 (talk) 15:21, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 4meter4, I Don't have a WP:POV agenda here, i am speaking on facts only. WP:SIGCOV states that Significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail I don't see any of the WP:RS covering this subject in detail. They do cover his arrest in detail and i've suggested that as well. This might certainly seem as WP:POV but you can check my AfD history,Being the nom it's my responsibility to discuss and I always reply to all the comments made to discuss things in detail. And moreover my POV won't be considered, because the closing admin's would obviously be more experienced than me to decide whether my comments made make sense or not. Also as far as Time Is considered, Macktheknifeau has already stated that above Notability requires "multiple" examples of "significant" coverage. A single mention in a listcruft article with no real byline that is clearly a piece of propaganda against American geopolitical enemies doesn't count as significant. Closing this discussion now. Peace. -- Jammumylove Talk to me or CHECK MY RECENT WORK 15:38, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I read that assessment and I disagree with the characterization. The Time article is clearly divided into 10 sections with headings profiling 10 individuals. One of those headings, and it’s succeeding section is devoted to Qazi Shibli. That’s not a trivial mention, but a featured profile. The fact that the magazine chose to simply biline the entire article with TIME Staff is not surprising or unusual in this kind of article, but it doesn’t change the fact that the article would have gone through TIME’s well respected fact checking and editorial review process, and therefore doesn’t diminish the quality or verifiability or significance of the work as a piece of evidence.4meter4 (talk) 16:18, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete the article, i am a notable and famous journalist from jammu and kashmir and founder of the kashmiriyat which is the most famous media agency in kashmir, people use wikipedia to read and know about me. Do not delete this. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4050:2D8D:3916:6159:30D1:6F74:9CBA (talk) 07:29, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 23:10, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable, why are we even using the news-site he's associated for an article on him. -- Eatcha 05:34, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Needs multiple independent sources giving significant coverage- he has one and several local ones he may be connected to. Perhaps a WP:TOOSOON, but not currently notable. Nightenbelle (talk) 14:59, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closer. The offline peer reviewed journal article I cited above is a significant source. The deletion votes have not accounted for the offline reference when weighing WP:SIGCOV. That and the the Time story in addition to the global press coverage is enough to meet the multiple sources requirement of GNG in my opinion.4meter4 (talk) 00:37, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Content is irrelevant for determining notability at AfD; limited evidence of BEFORE process. Extensive, multiyear, indepth coverage available,[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8] discussed by Amnesty International[9] and in the 2020 Freedom House annual review.[10] UCS, easily meets the GNG.

References

  1. ^ "Kashmir: Missing Journalist Sums Up Total Breakdown Of Democracy". HuffPost. 18 September 2019.
  2. ^ Malik, Irfan Amin (6 May 2020). "Why Are Kashmiri Prisoners Happy About Coronavirus Pandemic?". TheQuint.
  3. ^ "India: Police detain Kashmiriyat editor Qazi Shibli / IFJ". International Federation of Journalists. 3 August 2020.
  4. ^ "Indian Journalists Union Demands Scribe Qazi Shibli Be Released From Custody". The Wire. 3 August 2020.
  5. ^ "South Kashmir-based editor, journalist, Qazi Shibli, again detained by Indian police: IIOJK". Associated Press Of Pakistan. 1 August 2020.
  6. ^ "Jammu and Kashmir police launch investigations into 3 journalists". Committee to Protect Journalists. 22 February 2021.
  7. ^ "Plan for Cyber Volunteers to Police India's Internet Draws Criticism | Voice of America - English". www.voanews.com. 25 February 2021.
  8. ^ Pandow, Bilal Ahmad (1 September 2020). ""The idea is to kill journalism": Kashmiri journalists on what it's like working under lockdown, an internet blackout and a new draconian media law". Index on Censorship. 49 (3): 17–19. doi:10.1177/0306422020958271.
  9. ^ "JAMMU AND KASHMIR AFTER ONE YEAR OF ABROGATION OF ARTICLE 370" (PDF). Indians For Amnesty International Trust. 2020.
  10. ^ Freedom in the World 2020: The Annual Survey of Political Rights and Civil Liberties. Rowman & Littlefield. p. 1372. ISBN 978-1-5381-5181-5.
Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 12:29, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Goldsztajn, limited evidence of BEFORE? how? I've already commented above that the subject Shibli does have SIGCOV but for just one event i-e his arrest which would be a BLP1E. Moreover i've suggest it to be changed as Arrest of Qazi Shibli, Just Like Arrest of Kamran Yusuf. Even the source's you've shared have covered his Arrest. -- Jammumylove Talk to me or CHECK MY RECENT WORK 17:20, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The AfD nomination only deals with the content, it does not address the issue of notability, hence "limited evidence of BEFORE". If you wish to have a discussion about renaming the article, AfD is not the place. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 00:15, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Goldsztajn, AfD arises only when there’s the issue with the Notability. What else venue do you think the notability should be discussed at, if not AfD? As per my knowledge, we raise articles at AfD when they have notability issues and aren’t fir per standard of an encyclopaedia. If i am wrong do correct me.-- Jammumylove Talk to me or CHECK MY RECENT WORK 01:01, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Jammumylove: To be precise: *your* entire nominating text was purely about the present contents of the article, which is irrelevant for the purposes of AfD. This is why I stated that there was limited evidence of WP:BEFORE...If I wasn't AGF, I probably would have said, "no evidence." Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 08:11, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Times article cannot be considered trivial. There is significant coverage available on the subject though the article does require more details.defcon5 (talk) 16:20, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He's a notable journalist and has enough reliable news links references. User talk:Jammumylove Created account few weeks back and looks like purposely nominating profiles for nomination.
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.
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. There's little discussion, and given the apparent potential for confusion, any new nomination should make sure that we don't confuse this person with the subject of the last AfD (if they are indeed different people). Sandstein 07:17, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kumud Das

AfDs for this article:
Kumud Das (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This journalist was found in 2013 to be non-notable, as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kumud Das. The information in this article is from or prior to 2013, and so already considered by the prior AFD. Naïve Google search finds LinkedIn and Facebook and shows that he writes for the Economic Times. It appears that not much has changed in eight years. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:06, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:06, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:06, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:06, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep : The person Kumud Das [7] mentioned in your AFD remark is a different person. Kumud Das is not only a journalist but also a noted writer in Assamese language. To avoid confusion, here is a video of Kumud Das while hosting his popular TV show - [8] Nalbarian (talk) 06:19, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ─ The Aafī (talk) 18:03, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:10, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Eatcha, could you please elaborate? He is a author of several books and a leading TV journalist of a major TV channel in Assam (Check the article and references). I think namesake (people having identical monikers in a nation of 1.3 billion) is the only problem with him. Nalbarian (talk) 06:16, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kieran207(talk-Contribs) 01:51, 9 April 2021 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Journalism&oldid=1015132235"