Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brent Budowsky

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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:16, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brent Budowsky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

This article relies far too much on sources that are works written by Budowsky. There is not significant coverage of him in 3rd party indepdent sources, definately not enough to pass the general notability guidelines. John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:31, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 December 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:05, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete May I add that I blog for the Huffington Post and I know a few friends who are freelance journalists, and they also have the Hill contributor accounts. Moral of the story: You don't need to be notable to have a Huff Post or the Hill blogger account. If you are friends with the editors, you can get one, regardless of experience. As a result, the subject does not meet the requirements to be worthy of its own article space. Perhaps, the subject can have a brief mention on the Hill or Huff Post articles under 'contributors'. But that's about it. Blog accounts are not reliable sources that establishes notability. And I don't find any independent sources covering the subject in-depth, or demonstrates the subject's impact in the industry they are in. Scorpion293 (talk) 00:33, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I checked, and added 2 WP:RS establishing that he is a paid, employed news columnist at The Hill, not freelancer with a Hill contributor account.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:10, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:29, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• leaning keep Added a couple of articles that are about stuff he wrote, there is probably more out there about him since he has been covering national politics for years and is a relatively well-known journalist.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:58, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• As is so often true, if a small # of sources pop right up, more will turn up with a more powerful search. Budowsky is a fairly well-known columnist, ideas he puts forward in his columns get picked up, discussed, cited, and often ignite small flurries among the political commentariat. I ran a proquest search but have not added all of this sort of material, only added 2 solid sources confirming that editor above was mistaken, he is a paid, professional columnist. Article needs expansion. changed my iVote from "leaning" to "keep."E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:23, 13 January 2017 (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.