Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:53, 20 December 2019

Deletion Sorting Project
(talk)Project page Lists (by ABC) Lists (by topic) Lists (computer-readable) AfD: Today, Yesterday Delsort scripts
v t e

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 {{Misplaced Pages: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.

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 other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Journalism. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Misplaced Pages's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

• WikiProject Deletion sorting/Journalism/archive

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 delete. Tone 19:30, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Amy Kellogg

Amy Kellogg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I did a check for sources after coming across this article and seeing it only uses primary references. I've found nothing but passing mentions in published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. Those passing mentions have to do with Kellogg's interviews of other or stories she has reported on but do not cover Kellogg in detail. If I'm missing a source I'd be happy to be shown it. As of now, appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:BIO as a non-notable TV personality. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 08:53, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 08:53, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 08:53, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 08:53, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

• Delete journalists are not default notable, and there is not enough coverage here to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:39, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
• Delete. fail WP:GNG and WP:BIO as a non-notable journalists/TV personality.-Nahal 18:42, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

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. Sandstein 14:53, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Jonas Max Ferris

Jonas Max Ferris (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I did a check for sources after coming across this article and seeing it only uses primary references. I've found only found 3 passing mentions in published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. Those passing mentions have to do with Ferris' company MAXfunds.com, and do not go in depth into this person. If I'm missing a source I'd be happy to be shown it. As of now, appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:BIO as a non-notable TV personality. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 09:53, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 09:53, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 09:53, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 09:53, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

• Delete - lots of quotes and mentions as a pundit, but no actual WP:SIGCOV of the man himself. Fails WP:BASIC. FOARP (talk) 12:13, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
• Delete we need more coverage to show notability. Just because you appear on TV does not mean you are notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:52, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
• Keep for now. I added a little information. Searching is a little difficult since he has been a financial pundit since 2002.Patapsco913 (talk) 19:47, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

• Keep He has been personally discussed in a number of sources beyond just being quoted. The sources added by Patapsco913 discuss a website which he operates which was mentioned at length in several independent secondary sources. He appears to have been a moderately high profile figure in the investment world for some time, beyond just being a pundit. Machetazic (talk) 15:01, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Yet not a single source added by you or Patapsco913 has been in-depth coverage of Ferris himself (merely more coverage of Maxfunds and now a Fox News story Ferris discussed on air once). MaxFunds.com potentially having some notability, and stories Ferris has covered on Fox News getting secondary coverage, are not justifications for Ferris having a stand-alone article himself. So, in no way has the article been improved to our standard of retention. And, I still do not see a path for that to happen here. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 10:18, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
• Delete Per nom. ZXVZ (talk) 18:26, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Blocked sock. Captain Eek ⚓ 04:56, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

• Comment - Agree with above commenter that the cited additional sources are not actually coverage of Ferris per se but instead of his website. As such my delete vote stands. FOARP (talk) 12:26, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
• Delete there is just not very much in the way of significant coverage coming up in my searches.NotButtigieg (talk) 15:33, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

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. Tone 09:13, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Sabrina Sabbagh

Sabrina Sabbagh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

After removing all unreliable sources from the article, there are no sources in this. I did a check for sources online as well, and found no published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO as a non-notable journalist. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 12:27, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 12:27, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 12:27, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 12:27, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

• Delete a non-notable broadcast journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:20, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

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. RL0919 (talk) 01:30, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Seth Ferranti

Seth Ferranti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:BIO. No effective coverage. Two mentions for arrest. Single event. Nothing else. scope_creep 21:01, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:06, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 21:34, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

• Delete local arrest coverage does not add up to passing GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:21, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, as well as WP:BLP. We demand much better sources whenever a BLP is weighted unduly about an alleged criminal past. Bearian (talk) 18:31, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

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. RL0919 (talk) 16:28, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Color Man

Color Man (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG, I cant find any reliable sources. Andrew Base (talk) 15:15, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Andrew Base (talk) 15:15, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. Andrew Base (talk) 15:15, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 15:22, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 15:22, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 15:24, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 15:24, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

• Strongly delete: This article shows a lack of notability so it should be deleted as soon as possible.Kitaab Ka Kida (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:31, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
• Delete a non-notable Youtuber. Some have argued we tend to delete too many internet related articles because of our insistence on sourcing. However considering that the birth year we have with the most articles connected to it, 1989, is so recent, I think the easier access to recent sources outweighs any effects of some professions not yet having good secondary source coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:15, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

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. Sandstein 21:40, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Steven Romo (journalist)

Steven Romo (journalist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Subject lacks notability and significant in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains 03:23, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:39, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

• Keep as meeting GNG. ミラP 18:34, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. ミラP 18:34, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

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 Ragtime#Revivals. Tone 10:43, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

The Mississippi Rag

The Mississippi Rag (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable magazine that does not meet WP:N or WP:GNG nor does it have any references or sources, let alone any significant coverage to note. Dr42 (talk) 06:58, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Dr42 (talk) 06:58, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Dr42 (talk) 06:58, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Dr42 (talk) 06:58, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

• Keep - Note that another editor has added some sources since the Afd was created. A search of Google Books finds that articles from this magazine are often used to verify research on the history of ragtime and its performers. I submit that this qualifies for notability for an old publication under WP:DEFUNCTNEWS, which says "a more common sense approach which considers whether the periodical has been widely cited or written about." The article does need to be cleaned up however. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:40, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
• Redirect to Ragtime#Revivals_2. Based on the book source, a mention and a redirect in the main article on the magazine's role in ragtime revival would be appropriate. Otherwise, delete. As for standalone notability, the book does not go into any depth, The Syncopated Times is unreliable (no reputation for fact-checking or accuracy), and if all that can be found on the paper is some details in a local obituary of the publisher, that's not significant coverage. The publisher's article could be a redirect target too but that's going to end up deleted. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 03:03, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

• Redirect to Ragtime#Revivals_2. Czar's suggestion is useful as the relevance of this newspaper is on the research field which it documented; I have added a paragraph with the discussed references into that page. (Some mention at Trad_jazz#Later_revivals might also be useful, not least to reduce the anglo-centrism of that article, but that would need specific refs.) AllyD (talk) 10:05, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

• However, see the discussion which another editor has opened at Talk:Ragtime#Periodicals_/_Newspapers_/_Magazines:_Revival regarding this proposal. AllyD (talk) 19:48, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

• Redirect to Ragtime#Revivals_2 is the most appropriate alternative to deletion at this point in time. A quick check of the sources verifies Czar in-depth findings. ~riley (talk) 11:15, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

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. Spartaz 21:57, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Esportz Entertainment Corporation

Esportz Entertainment Corporation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No evidence this is a notable company despite the dozens of gnews hits which are all passing mentions or press releases. Praxidicae (talk) 13:44, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

• Comment None of the sources listed are passing mentions, in fact they all focus on the subject to the extent that Esportz Entertainment Corp. (or some variation) is in the title. Besides this, I think characterizing sources like Reuters, European Gaming, and Celebrity Access as press releases is inaccurate, although they are industry publications. The page was nominated for speedy deletion as spam just yesterday by the same editor nominating it here, but that nomination was overturned by an admin. I feel like this nomination as non-notable is just a continuation of that debate, since this editor does not approve of the outcome. I understand the importance of preventing spam but this page does meet Misplaced Pages's criteria. ElectricNatchos (talk) 20:50, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Not a single article is in depth coverage, they're all press releases, passing mentions or WP:MILL. Praxidicae (talk) 21:47, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 14:28, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 14:28, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 14:29, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 14:29, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 14:30, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 14:30, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

• Keep Being the largest esport network isn't notable? That's a joke right? Seems plenty notable as it is, and I assume there will only be more stuff published about it in the coming years. I don't really know how anyone could think that this is WP:MILL. Bluedude588 (talk) 16:01, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

what independent source states this and isn’t based on a press release? Praxidicae (talk) 16:29, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Bluedude588, can you please provide a reference that isn't based on information provided by the company? The claims of being the "largest esport network" appears to be one that is made by the company itself. HighKing 15:43, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

I withdraw my comment. Didn't realize that press releases weren't allowed. Bluedude588 (talk) 22:08, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Bluedude588, it is more conventional to strike it out by surrounding the text with some markup as follows: "<s>The Original Text You Wish To Strike Out</s>" which would result in it looking like this: The Original Text You Wish To Strike Out. HighKing 13:10, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

• Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content. Independenr Content must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject - none of the sources meets this test. Topic fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing 15:42, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

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. Sandstein 23:08, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

George Eaton (journalist)

George Eaton (journalist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:JOURNALIST and WP:GNG. No significant coverage of Eaton as a person. Ralbegen (talk) 23:00, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Ralbegen (talk) 23:00, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Ralbegen (talk) 23:00, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

• Keep Subject easily passes WP:GNG and WP:JOURNALIST Criterion 1. They're a bunch of results from a google search that pops up on GNEWS. Lapablo (talk) 13:51, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

@Lapablo: Can you point to significant coverage of Eaton? The article is currently relying on his LinkedIn profile for its biographical information, which feels like a pretty strong indication against the GNG. Ralbegen (talk) 14:45, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

@Ralbegen: I hope this is good enough for you take a pick, google result . Lapablo (talk) 15:11, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Which of those are about Eaton? There's a lot of WP:BLP1E coverage of his interview with Roger Scruton, but nothing I can see that's about Eaton, at least nothing that would constitute substantial coverage... Ralbegen (talk) 16:03, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

@Ralbegen: This link here has nothing to do with Roger Scruton and a few others there. Lapablo (talk) 10:44, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

@Lapablo: WP:Interviews contribute to the GNG in the material the interviewer introduces about the subject. This interview has one paragraph introducing Eaton where we learn: he's a left-wing journalist, he quotes Marx, at the time he was deputy editor of the New Statesman, and he has a distinctive writing style. I don't think that's enough for the substantial coverage the GNG requires. Ralbegen (talk) 13:49, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

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.

• Misplaced Pages deletion sorting
• WikiProject Journalism