Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Journalism

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:

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.
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 {{Wikipedia: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 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:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Journalism/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Journalism

Erel Segal

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

Fails WP:JOURNALIST, WP:GNG. No WP:SIGCOV, just dummy articles! Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 11:28, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, News media, and Israel. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 11:28, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a very well known and prominent journalist. The article has over a dozen sources, and I will shortly add more Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 20:56, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kentucky Rain24, can you share your WP:THREE please? Journalists are among the hardest to research. gidonb (talk) 13:45, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

this provides an in depth look at Segal's political views and places them in the context of Israeli right wing media, and indicates notability beyond Israeli media
this is a lengthy, in-depth interview dedicated to Segal, in Israel's highest circulation mainstream newspaper. This alone satisfies WP:SIGCOV.
this provides English language coverage of a notable controversy he was involved with, showing notability beyond Israel (DW is a German broadcaster)

Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 14:40, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

#2 and #3 are not independent. BuzzFeed isn't very good but the journalist who wrote #1 is. gidonb (talk) 16:28, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Buzzfeed News is rated "green" and reliable on WP:RSNP. Why you'd think that ynet and deutsche welle are not independent of Segal is beyond me. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 16:42, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that these are interviews, quoted content, and shared sexism in a tv-show. Not independent content or SIGCOV. These media are actually good. Buzzfeed is acceptable because of the author. gidonb (talk) 16:53, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are misreading the defintion of "independent" - ""Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent."- an interview with Segal is not produced by him but by the paper and journalist interviewing him.

Regardless, while the DW article includes a very short quote from Segal, it is neither an interview nor focused on that quote. Instead, it describes the controversy Segal was involved with, with other 3rd parties commenting about Segal. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 17:04, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take another look and weigh again how much is independent content about Segal. Not ruling out any conclusion yet. gidonb (talk) 17:07, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Charles

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

I have carried out WP:BEFORE on this article about a journalist and added three references. Two are not independent, however, and the other is a passing mention. I don't think he meets WP:GNG or WP:NJOURNALIST. The article has been marked as possibly not notable since 2020. Tacyarg (talk) 22:13, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, News media, Radio, Television, United Kingdom, and England. Tacyarg (talk) 22:13, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Have now added the archive of his BBC profile, but don't think that changes notability status. Tacyarg (talk) 22:21, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kanchan Gupta

AfDs for this article:

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

Non notable journalist, articles depend on totally one reference, fails WP:GNG. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 10:52, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Journalism, News media, and West Bengal. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 10:52, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the article relies almost entirely on one source, and therefore fails General notability guideline. EncyclopediaEditorXIV (talk) 18:08, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saturday Live (British TV program)

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

This article was created in 2009 by a user who hasn't edited since then. According the article itself, it was a two hour long show that ran from 2005 to 2011. A WP:BEFORE search would appear to indicate some questions about whether this purported Sky News show actually ever happened. WP:NTV would appear to be applicable here. Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 09:47, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, News media, Television, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom, this article has somehow been around for 15 years, and yet has zero sources (violating WP:OR) and only consists of 3 sentences; one of which is incomplete. Mjks28 (talk) 13:40, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Katherine Salant

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

WP:MILL journalist, does not fulfill WP:NJOURNALIST criteria. Broc (talk) 21:26, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Broc (talk) 21:26, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Journalism, Massachusetts, Virginia, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:50, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Enough coverage of her books to pass AUTHOR [1], [2], [3] Oaktree b (talk) 22:12, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Static Line (magazine)

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

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources and the article only links to primary sources. toweli (talk) 17:19, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Music, Computing, and Internet. toweli (talk) 17:19, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 20:02, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:14, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:22, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sardar Khan Niazi

AfDs for this article:

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

The BLP clearly falls short of meeting the GNG as well NJOURNALIST - It was previously nominated for deletion back in 2017, but it survived due to insufficient participation. The only participant who voted to keep it was a sock account who provided no strong sourcing based on GNG. The sockpuppet also claimed that the subject had received one award. However, per WP:NBIO, receiving a single award does not automatically guarantee that a subject should get a WP BLP. Saqib (talk) 11:42, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Saqib (talk) 11:42, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:45, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:ANYBIO#2 - he has received Tamgha-i-Imtiaz for his work. Editor-in-chief of a number of licensed newspapers, founder of a PEMRA-licensed TV station is enough to show his notability. 2400:ADC7:5101:2500:B17C:9657:E301:EFD4 (talk) 22:30, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the last nomination, @Lourdes: shared a good rationale to keep this article. 2400:ADC7:5101:2500:B17C:9657:E301:EFD4 (talk) 22:31, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sachi Baat SK Niazi k Sath should be a redirect to this article. 2400:ADC7:5101:2500:B17C:9657:E301:EFD4 (talk) 22:33, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IP - I guess I pointed out that per WP:NBIO, receiving a single award does not automatically guarantee that a subject should get a WP BLP. Similarly, positions such as "Editor-in-chief of a number of licensed newspapers, founder of a PEMRA-licensed TV station" do not inherently establish WP:N or automatically justify a WP BLP. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 06:02, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Failed WP:GNG. No in-depth coverage. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 15:28, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 17:42, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fleur Revell

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

There's not much significant coverage of Fleur Revell published in multiple secondary and reliable sources. None of the conditions outlined in the notability guideline for creative professionals apply in her case. There are many articles that mention her in the context of her affair but it isn't significant coverage. She has supposedly won 3 Qantas awards yet there is no evidence of that online and the claim is unreferenced. There might be proof in print and not online since she probably received them in the 90's. If that cannot be proved, there is not much to base her notability on. Certainly not the affair. Ynsfial (talk) 08:07, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Journalism, Television, and New Zealand. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:09, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Independent reliable sources with significant coverage exist but they are largely off-line publications from 1990s. I have added several such off-line citations.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 02:07, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not enough significant coverage EncyclopediaEditorXIV (talk) 17:54, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You don’t win three Qantas Media Awards without getting some attention. That happened at a time for which we have few online sources, though. Schwede 66 19:12, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, some of the sourcing amounts to OR. Interviews don't establish notability. Only source that can establish notability is this article: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/no-idea-what-next-for-fleur/NHVADVZ4KX5NZRLJFUHGB3PUBA/ The rest of the sources being not about her, interviews, or non-independent PR releases, and I fail to see GNG being met. I'd even argue the Qantas Media Awards fail GNG too, don't really see any independent coverage of that either. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:00, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there is some relatively negative reporting around her relationship with Paul Holmes in a couple of national newspapers and her departure from New Idea is also covered. I think more work needs to be done researching her and agree with Swede's view that her attaining three Qantas Media awards, in itsself, is sufficient to meet notability. I accept that a reference to properly establish this is necessary but that will take some time and research as the papers of the time are not online. NealeWellington (talk) 22:13, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:22, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note I removed poorly sourced content per WP:BLP, old version is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fleur_Revell&oldid=1230245045 Traumnovelle (talk) 21:18, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sajjala Ramakrishna Reddy

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

Notabillity issue. Thewikizoomer (talk) 18:58, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Journalism, and Andhra Pradesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:00, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Care to specify, how is this individual not meeting notability requirements? Oaktree b (talk) 19:14, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A fuller deletion rationale would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:41, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:GNG, also WP:NPOL. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 06:09, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already deleted by PROD so not eligible for Soft Deletion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Curzon Price

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

This subject fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO because the WP:LOTSOFSOURCES are primary, including biographies and the like by related parties. No particular claim to notability is textually clear. JFHJr (㊟) 03:49, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Journalism, Politics, Economics, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:30, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per The Telegraph (well beyond the Wikipedia:One hundred words suggestion for SIGCOV) and because we usually set the bar a little lower for sources that we might cite. (BTW, JFHJr, it's not necessary for an article to have a "particular claim to notability". Were you thinking about Wikipedia:Credible claim of significance, which is a WP:CSD thing?) WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:44, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No particular claim to notability is in regards to finding a more specific criterion than GNG. Where are the multiple independent (unrelated to the subject) reliable sources providing significant coverage? JFHJr (㊟) 03:51, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:30, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is the one Telegraph article, but everything else that I find is non-independent. I find only a few academic articles and the citation counts are low (barely double and often single digits, one at 166 cites). Lamona (talk) 02:13, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 04:42, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions

Paul Ingles (via WP:PROD on 22 January 2024)