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:

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.

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

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 keep‎. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:40, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Justice Waits

Justice Waits (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I believe this article about a book fails general notability and book notability. Of the cited sources, The first is simply a Google Books page nad the second only has a trivial mention of the book on the 6th page. The third article[1] is a promotional article written by the author of the book, which according to WP:BKCRIT doesn't count for notability. Searching the internet for more coverage has turned up nothing but more trivial mentions. GranCavallo (talk) 14:45, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Journalism, and Crime. GranCavallo (talk) 14:45, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:57, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

This is kind of weird because the book's existence (and other coverage) shows that the topic that the book covers (the "UC sweetheart murders") are notable. But we don't have an article on that. If we did this should probably be redirected to it as this looks to be the most comprehensive source. The book recounts the events, but yeah there doesn't seem to be a lot of coverage on the book itself (though admittedly, I did not look too hard).

So as a really weird AtD if this fails NBOOK we could turn this into a stub on the murder case and have a mention of the book in an aftermath section. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:43, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Due to sources presented below, keep, but IMO the murders may be independently notable anyway PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:47, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says:

  A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:

  1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.

  Sources
  1. Endicott, William (2005-11-13). "Tenacious: A journalist pushes to reopen a decades-old case". The Sacramento Bee. Archived from the original on 2024-06-09. Retrieved 2024-06-09 – via Newspapers.com.

     The review notes: ""Justice Waits: The UC Davis Sweetheart Murders" is Davis' story of the murders and their aftermath, a meticulously researched and highly readable account that tracks the lives of the victims and their familes, the almost Keystone Cops-like investigations that followed and what the Riggins and Gonsalves families hope will be the final chapter. ... A preliminary hearing to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to hold Hirschfield for trial is not scheduled until May. In this most gripping of true-crime stories, Davis concluded that while there may now be answers - brutal and nightmarish ones - there is no closure. Justice still waits."

  2. Barnett, Dan (2005-11-16). "Biblio File Book Review: True crime: Local connections to the 1980 UC Davis 'sweetheart murders'". Chico Enterprise-Record. Archived from the original on 2024-06-09. Retrieved 2024-06-09.

     The review notes: ""Justice Waits: The UC Davis Sweetheart Murders" ($24.95 in hardcover from Callister Press) is gripping and gutsy reportage about the crimes and the subsequent missteps in the investigation and how Davis himself has become part of the story. ... The book is frankly critical of some of the investigators and Davis acknowledges that he has made more than a few people angry with his pursuit of the case. But Davis is convinced that Riggins and Gonsalves, all these years later, deserve the justice that has so far eluded them. The story he tells is harrowing, and the end is not yet in sight."

  3. Hubert, Cynthia (2006-01-22). "Unraveling A Murder Mystery: Author Joel Davis fought to find justice for two slain college students while fighting his own battle with Parkinson's" (pages 1 and 2). The Sacramento Bee. Archived from the original (pages 1 and 2) on 2024-06-09. Retrieved 2024-06-09 – via Newspapers.com.

     The article notes: "The result is "Justice Waits: The UC Davis Sweetheart Murders" (Callister Press, $24.95, 220 pages), published late last year, just weeks before the 25th anniversary of the deaths of Riggins and Gonsalves. ... In 2000, he decided to turn his curiosity into a book project. He never dreamed it would take five years to finish. By the time Davis began his research, the case had gone ice cold. The journalist dug through court and police records, interviewed family members and friends of the victims, tracked down old suspects and confronted detectives and district attorneys, over and over, with questions about their investigation."

  4. Biggar, Alison (2006-03-26). "This Week". San Francisco Chronicle. Archived from the original on 2024-06-09. Retrieved 2024-06-09.

     The review notes: "Joel Davis' book, "Justice Waits: The UC Davis Sweetheart Murders" intrigued me for three reasons. First, it sparked memories of what I would refer to as the serial-murder era in the late '70s and early '80s, when it seemed as if every few months there was a random crime spree, which then took forever to solve."

  5. Whiting, Sam (2006-03-26). "A Very Cold Case / There's justice for the Davis Sweetheart Murders when journalist Joel Davis becomes part of the story". San Francisco Chronicle. Archived from the original on 2022-09-26. Retrieved 2024-06-09.

     The article notes: "Twice Davis had to pull "Justice Waits: The UC Davis Sweetheart Murders" back from Callister Press when new information surfaced. Six months after publication he's pounding out a second edition and updating the story weekly on his Web site, justicewaits.com."

  6. "Artists and Authors is this weekend". Davis Enterprise. 2007-04-19. Archived from the original on 2024-06-09. Retrieved 2024-06-09.

     The article notes: " Davis' "Justice Waits: The UC Davis Sweetheart Murders," is now in its third printing. The book chronicles the murder case of UC Davis sweethearts John Riggins and Sabrina Gonsalves. Davis is writing an epilogue based on the recent preliminary hearing of murder suspect Richard Hirschfield, who in March was bound over for trial for the gruesome 1980 murders."

  7. Keene, Lauren (2005-09-11). "During the summer of 2000, Joel Davis sat down to watch a C-SPAN interview of three of his favorite authors — David Halberstam, David McCullough and George Will". Davis Enterprise. Archived from the original on 2024-06-09. Retrieved 2024-06-09.

     The article notes: ""Justice Waits: The UC Davis Sweetheart Murders" (Callister Press; $24.95) finally saw publication last month, culminating a five-year process during which Davis chased down dusty, forgotten court documents, interviewed dozens of players in the case and, at the same time, waged his own personal battle with Parkinson's disease."

  8. Adler, Rebecca (2005-11-14). "Local Murder Mystery". Daily Democrat. Archived from the original on 2024-06-09. Retrieved 2024-06-09.

     The article notes: "His book project started as a yearlong reinvestigation into the murders and quickly turned into five years of searching through old court documents, chasing down investigators who had worked on the case, interviewing dozens of people and eventually becoming a crucial part of the story himself."

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Justice Waits to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 09:56, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

• Keep per Cunard's sources; the San Francisco Chronicle and Sacramento Bee articles demonstrate notability. Toughpigs (talk) 00:13, 10 June 2024 (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. ✗plicit 14:07, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Veronica Cintron

Veronica Cintron (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Vice President of Communications for the Tampa Airport, winner of multiple small awards doesn't establish WP:GNG for this article subject. In my BEFORE, I could only find mentions related to her work at the airport. The Emmy awards might be notable but they were regional and I wasn't prepared to watch a video to see if this claim was verified. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:12, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Florida. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:12, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
• Weak delete. This article as it stands is a collection of trivia and needs to be completely rewritten. (I removed a link to a Wordpress blog among the references.) Two sources might be said to clear the WP:GNG bar: the Tampa Bay Times piece and the Tampa Bay Business Journal article covering her hiring at the airport are both significant coverage of her in secondary, independent, reliable sources. The rest of the sources are trivial mentions (and the "Guide to Tampa Bay" profile is basically a marketing promo). I could probably be persuaded to keep based on the TBT/TBBJ references, but looking at all the sources in context as required, the subject appears to be a WP:RUNOFTHEMILL local broadcast journalist/corporate PR professional whose career does not warrant an article. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:48, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Television, and Puerto Rico. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:09, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Delete I thought there would be more coverage of her time as a news anchor, but apparently not. BrigadierG (talk) 13:38, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

• Weak keep. I agree there are two sources that satisfy GNG, per Dclemens1971. A lot of the trivia, specifically any cited by an unreliable source, should be removed. It might make the result a stub but there’s plenty of room for stubs, if they are notable (which, admittedly is determined by consensus). Zsinj^Talk 02:35, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 19:10, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

• Delete: I'm not impressed with the local Emmy win. The position held at the airport is non-notable, otherwise, she's simply a local reporter. Seems to be good at her job, I'm just not sure it rises to the level of notability for a wikipedia article. Oaktree b (talk) 20:22, 13 June 2024 (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. Malinaccier (talk) 14:10, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Dilly Braimoh

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Dilly Braimoh
• Articles for deletion/Dilly Braimoh (2nd nomination)

Dilly Braimoh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No evidence of any notability. The BFI source which would have been useful returns a 404 error. The other from IMDB is unreliable. Searches reveal very little, certainly nothing that adds to notability. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   13:48, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: Here is the archived version of the BFI dead link. Lubal (talk) 19:02, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. However, having seen the source, it does not actually add anything to notability.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   21:55, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Radio, Television, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:07, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
• This book briefly confirms that he grew up in foster care. This news article briefly says he attended Croydon College (not in the article) and did "Dilly Dines Out" (not cited in the article). Overall, I'm not finding many sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:27, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A prior AfD discussion ended in soft delete, so I would like to get a bit more input and get firm consensus to delete or keep the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 14:32, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

• Delete: Fails WP:GNG, article stand on only one source! Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 11:37, 19 June 2024 (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. ✗plicit 14:41, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Sajjala Ramakrishna Reddy

Sajjala Ramakrishna Reddy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

• 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)

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

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)

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

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)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:29, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

• Keep - Passes GNG from sources showing. Carrite (talk) 04:35, 1 July 2024 (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. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:54, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Tony Curzon Price

Tony Curzon Price (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(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)

• 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)
• 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)

  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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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. ✗plicit 01:56, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Jaime Stein

Jaime Stein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Lack of significant coverage in independent sources. Hirolovesswords (talk) 14:55, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 16:46, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and American football. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:49, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
• Keep: Stein meets the WP:GNG with significant coverage from reliable sources such as [[2]], [[3]] and [[4]]. This is also WP:SIGCOV but is not independent: [[5]]. Let'srun (talk) 10:17, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We need more people to participate in AfD discussions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 15:05, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

• Delete The "oursportscentral" article is a rather typical "new job announcement" and doesn't do much to support GNG. The Vancouver Sun 2004 article is a single sentence. The Rotman article is not independent, it's one of those alumnus blurbs. While it might provide some facts it is a good bet that they come directly from the subject. The only possible significant article I see is the Vancouver Sun 2005 one. It talks about the subject as beginning a career, and given that was in 2005 I would expect to have seen later articles about a career, but I don't. Lamona (talk) 22:07, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 15:35, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

• Delete: Even in .ca sources, there is hardly anything. I agree with the nom's review of the sources, most aren't helpful. Oaktree b (talk) 17:04, 16 June 2024 (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 keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Arthur Sweetser

Arthur Sweetser (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This subject fails WP:GNG and has no particular claim to notability. JFHJr (㊟) 05:38, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Politics, Education, Europe, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:16, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: I've been able to locate a few sources on Sweetser. Per this book, Sweetser's (1888-1968) was a journalist and League of Nations' staff member whose dense and global relations almost completely escaped historians' attention, so it seems like he was an important figure but just hasn't been written about too much. I was also able to find some biographical coverage in a few different pages of this book. Additionally, this contemporary journal article provides coverage of him and one of his books. If this article is kept, this brief note contains biographical info which can be used to source it. There are around 2,000 mentions of him on newspapers.com for the period between 1915 and 1945; I haven't gone through all of them of course, but [6][7][8] were some big mentions that came up. Additionally, his obituaries ([9][10]) provide further biographical information which can be used to source the article if it is kept. Curbon7 (talk) 21:14, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 18:53, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:32, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

• Keep: This as well, gives a few paragraphs to his career to that point [11] and a book review here [12] Oaktree b (talk) 14:53, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:00, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

• Keep: Please scroll to the bottom of the article and the Authority control databases. There are international results there, meaning his works are published in those countries. The Library of Congress returns 20 resources on his works. . — Maile (talk) 03:34, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
• Keep: Clearly pass WP:GNG, WP:JOURNALIST. There are many ref. i added. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 04:13, 21 June 2024 (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 merge‎ to ESPNews. as an ATD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:42, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

List of ESPNews personalities

List of ESPNews personalities (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Subject does not meet the WP:LISTN as this grouping isn't discussed in non-primary sources. Let'srun (talk) 02:15, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Television, Sports, and Lists. Let'srun (talk) 02:15, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:26, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
• Merge to ESPNews. There are no grouping sources on the subject, but the WP:NAVIGATION purposes are still there, so the ATD is better at the main. Conyo14 (talk) 18:50, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge to ESPNews per WP:ATD. A list that is useful being a category but not as a list, which is entirely unsourced. SpacedFarmer (talk) 21:36, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
• Delete or redirect to List of SportsCenter anchors and reporters; unsourced and the target articles generally describe people as SportsCenter hosts rather than being specifically associated with ESPNews. Walsh90210 (talk) 22:57, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Two different Merge target articles suggested here
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:41, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

• Delete - This is the function of categories, not articles. Carrite (talk) 15:55, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd prefer to Merge or Redirect this article given the current status of the discussion but folks haven't settled on a target article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:20, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

• Merge to ESPNews Article is frozen in time from 2014 when all original programming it carried was phased out, and ESPNews and SportsCenter up to 2014 were generally completely different in tone and direction. Nate • (chatter) 17:22, 14 June 2024 (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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:40, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Matt Hunt (journalist)

Matt Hunt (journalist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Heavily embellished promotional bio created by an SPA, with no actual in-depth coverage by independent reliable sources. Except for nigeriasportsnews.com, which appears to be a puff piece, none of the sources refbombed in the article are actually about the subject—only tangential mentions from issues he has been involved in. Paul_012 (talk) 09:07, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Journalism, and Thailand. Paul_012 (talk) 09:07, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
• Pinging Jamiebuba, who recently accepted the draft at AfC. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:07, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Photography, Environment, Internet, California, Florida, and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
• Keep: He is notable as a journalist. Several coverage from BBC and also a host of a show on BBC as well. Subject is a main personality on a notable international station. Be icaverraverra]] _talk 02:58, 6 June 2024 (UTC) – Note: User has been blocked for undisclosed paid editing.
  • Please provide a valid, policy-based reason when commenting at AfDs. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:44, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:02, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Delete, his cause/work may be notable but notability isn't inherited. Traumnovelle (talk) 01:17, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 19:08, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

• Delete: The controversy section isn't terribly notable, rest of the sourcing is simple confirmation of employment. I don't find sources we'd use to build an article. Sadly as a free-lancer, there likely will not be much critical notice of their work; this assumes no awards such as a Pulitzer or an Emmy. I don't find any sort of confirmation of awards won. Oaktree b (talk) 20:26, 13 June 2024 (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. I could relist this, but it does not seem like we are drawing nearer to a breakthrough that would result in a clear consensus being reached. Malinaccier (talk) 20:24, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Danialle Karmanos

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Danialle Karmanos
• Articles for deletion/Danialle Karmanos (2nd nomination)

Danialle Karmanos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Routine coverage and awards; no reliable sources. Likely not meeting ANYBIO BoraVoro (talk) 12:33, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

• Keep: Some coverage of her philanthropy [13], [14], [15]. Sources 2 and 3 I've listed are more about a yoga program she founded, perhaps create the article and redirect there or to the Children's Hospital in Detroit? Oaktree b (talk) 12:58, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, Journalism, Health and fitness, Education, and Michigan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:39, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
• Delete Sorry, but the sources and article don't look notable in my eyes. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 14:56, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:52, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

• delete: This article was tended for several years by a SPA, whose first edit was creating a detailed version of this article..consistent with a vanity page or promotion. 128.252.172.2 (talk) 21:57, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

UTC)

• Keep – Refs need some more recent additions, as she appears from the few recent sources to be currently active, but media coverage suggests she is well enough known for people to be wanting to read about her. Older sources need presenting as historical information, not current reports about what she's doing now, for example the cringey quote about waking up each day. --Northernhenge (talk) 19:17, 12 June 2024 (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 keep‎. given article improvements and consensus. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:29, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Peter Shapiro (journalist)

Peter Shapiro (journalist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Journalist falls short of WP:NBIO and WP:GNG tests; no evidence of WP:SIGCOV of him separate from his own writing and coverage of his books. (His book "Turn the Beat Around" would likely pass WP:NBOOK if an article were created on it, but Shapiro's notability cannot be WP:INHERITED from it.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Music. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:00, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
• Leaning towards keep on the subject of this article. I disagree with the nominators assessment here - particularly as the applicable guideline is WP:AUTHOR, where independent coverage of the author's work is sufficient to evidence notability; WP:INHERITED does not apply. I have found and added several independent citations to the article, including a number of RS book reviews and RS articles stating the importance of the works of Shapiro. As such I !vote to keep this article per WP:AUTHOR#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 multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. Article could really use expansion however. Per WP:NOPAGE I also recommend a single central article on the author and his works, rather than multiple articles on the books themselves. - I recommend Modulations: A History of Electronic Music is redirected to Shapiro if the result of this AfD is to keep. ResonantDis_tortion 14:30, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

  I appreciate you adding reviews links to the article. I disagree with you on the eligibility for WP:AUTHOR #3. While the author has created a couple of independently notable works, none of the reviews or sources describe the significance of his body of work; they are about individual works. While I agree that Modulations and Turn the Beat Around are notable, I don't think there are any sources to describe them as "significant" nor do any sources discuss them in the context of Shapiro's body of work. Considering that the only available sources are reviews of individual works, the notability should go to the works themselves. Furthermore, the reviews provide virtually no WP:SIGCOV of Shapiro himself, which would leave this article a WP:PERMASTUB without verifiable biographical information. The absence of significant coverage points toward delete. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:46, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

  But there is enough coverage to write a non-stub article on Shapiro that is focused on his works. Frankly I find the sourcing on Modulations: A History of Electronic Music to be limited - it struggles to meet notability guidelines and it should be merged and redirected to the parent article Modulations: Cinema for the Ear, as a section in that page. As for WP:AUTHOR#3 - I am struggling to follow the above logic as the guidelines clearly do not require secondary coverage of the works as a body; a single book suffices. In this case we have at minimum one fully notable work and several more works with RS secondary coverage over a WP:SUSTAINED period, and the best place to manage this would be the single article on the author. To support this with an example, His 2005 book, The Rough Guide to Hip-Hop, has reliable sources both recommending it and stating it is important; but this is likely not enough for a standalone article, so the author article is the next best place. (Note - given the age of some of the books - we can very likely presume that offline coverage exists beyond a standard search engine). ResonantDis_tortion 16:19, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

  Here's what I question on criterion 3: is his work "significant and well-known"? I agree the one book meets the standard of "notable," but "significant and well-known" is different, if undefined. I find it difficult to understand how someone's work could be significant and well-known and the author of them remain sufficiently unknown that there are no reliable sources to validate even birth date or country of origin. (Sources disagree about whether Shapiro is American or British.) I'd be OK with a redirect of this page to an article for Turn the Beat Around if one were to be created, but without anything significant coverage I'm defaulting to WP:COMMONSENSE for a situation in which we can't really construct a biography. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:06, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

  I think we are going to disagree on this one. Given there are a number of reliable sources dedicated to the subjects' other books, but are not sufficiently SIGCOV in and of themselves to create several separate articles for each, the best option (per my version of WP:COMMONSENSE!) would be the other way round: Turn the Beat Around: The Secret History of Disco should redirect to Peter Shapiro (journalist) so we have a single page for all his works. ResonantDis_tortion 02:46, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

• Keep - With the addition of new sources, I don't see any particular concern with notability. Shankargb (talk) 02:28, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
• Comment. To elucidate why I think the (many) book reviews of Shapiro's work don't constitute WP:SIGCOV of Shapiro himself, here's what the sigcov policy states: "We require 'significant coverage' in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic. If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page, but should instead be merged into an article about a larger topic or relevant list." Right now, the article as it stands is just a few sentences, hardly any about Shapiro himself and about his work, and the sourcing doesn't really permit anything further to be written. As noted above, we don't even have the most basic information about his life. Thus my argument that the books are notable but that the author is not. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:57, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is a difference of opinion on whether WP:AUTHOR is met.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:45, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

• Weak keep : I've also found this [16], but it also appears on the article author's (Howard Blas') website. I suppose it's a RS Oaktree b (talk) 01:36, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: and this in Variety [17] Oaktree b (talk) 01:37, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  I understand this article refers to a different Peter Shapiro (concert promoter) - who also writes books on the music business. Which makes source finding doubly tricky! ResonantDis_tortion 05:41, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Delete as I find no coverage for this individual, sources I'd identified are for a different person. Oaktree b (talk) 12:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

@Oaktree b - in the article are cited 14 secondary refs covering the books written by the subject of this article. This includes seven full page reviews of one of his works, multiple other reviews of his other works and further WP:RS stating the importance and recommending these other works. I personally do not see how WP:NAUTHOR is not met, and there's easily enough coverage to, at minimum, build a start class article based upon the works this individual has created (it took me about 5 minutes to expand the article by ~400%). ResonantDis_tortion 06:21, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 15:00, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

• With the biographical information identified and added by ResonantDis_tortion (thanks!) I now think we have enough basic information, paired with the criteria of WP:NAUTHOR, to keep, so I withdraw my nomination and change my !vote to keep. Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:07, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ResonantDis_tortion 08:01, 9 June 2024 (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. Owen× ☎ 23:11, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Investigate Europe

Investigate Europe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

None of the sources that mention the subject cover it in depth, so fails the WP:SIRS test, and so fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Organizations, and Europe. UtherSRG (talk) 10:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

As AFC reviewer, I'm a keep here. The article probably needs a bit of work, but it does appear to meet WP:NMEDIA#Newspapers, magazines and journals on the surface, and appears to have been used and cited in a number of different reliable publication, as well as received coverage in various non-English sources, mainly French and Germans (see fr:Investigate_Europe for some more examples of this). I think that WP:GNG is met in this instance. Mdann52 (talk) 17:04, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:13, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:30, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

• Mdann52 is probably right. We tend to be more lenient with articles about sources anyway, because they have immediate practical value to editors (primarily when we are evaluating the reliability of sources for use in other articles). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:08, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
• Keep per Mdann52. After reviewing several sources in the article, it's clear that criteria 3 and 4 of NMEDIA for newspapers are met, and possibly 1 too. (And yes, that's "just an essay", but in this case it provides a compelling reasoning for keeping this article. Also applicable is the similar essay WP:NNEWSPAPER, which clarifies that Many periodicals are notably influential without being the subject of secondary sources.) Toadspike [Talk] 05:37, 12 June 2024 (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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:54, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Leonard Mbotela

Leonard Mbotela (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Doesn't meet WP:NJOURNALIST / WP:ANYBIO. BoraVoro (talk) 07:06, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Kenya. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  08:09, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  08:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
• Keep: Seems to pass notability, sources 6 and 11 are the best. I also found this [18] and [19]. The last one I posted seems to suggest political notability as well. Oaktree b (talk) 13:31, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:04, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

• Keep: Procedural keep per meeting at least some credible and keep...able input. There can be sources since the article somewhat meets inclusion by importance and source by few reliable source per WP:RS. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 09:44, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

• I'm seeing lots of keep opinions from this editor on this day, and regrettably, most of them do not make sense. "Procedural keep per meeting at least some credible and keep...able input" is close to nonsense. "Somewhat meets inclusion by importance and source by few reliable source" is not a helpful or useful comment. Please state which sources are reliable and contribute towards notability. Geschichte (talk) 21:00, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

  @User:Geschichte, it seems I used mobile that caused much of the typographical error. Also the time shows I was in a sleep carried mode (ready to sleep for the night), that I may have edited wrongly (but with love not with prejudice). I didn't see this as early as because I wasn't pinged. Please this type of comment should be partly, when necessary addressed to the editors talk page and if likely, only on that particular case. If I had made mistake, advise me on my TP and not leave a message without diff as you did. Now j understand your message on my TP. The diff I requested wasn't sent by you and it was difficult to check if there was any error with my vote in AFDs. Thanks though and will value the spirit of rechecking. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 20:26, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting after reading Geschichte's comment.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:40, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I don't think a diff is required when an editor is quoting from a message right above theirs. Sorry if it was embarrassing but some comments in AFDs just don't make any sense.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:01, 11 June 2024 (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 keep‎. This is a close one, but given the additional sources and expansion of the article, the arguments to keep the article have more weight. An alternative take would be that there is no consensus, but my read is that the additional sources identified have changed things. Malinaccier (talk) 14:40, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Artur Orzech

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Artur Orzech

Artur Orzech (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Seems to be a WP:RUNOFTHEMILL reality show host. Fails WP:GNG. 178.164.179.49 (talk) 06:43, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 May 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:18, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Poland. Shellwood (talk) 09:24, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Which reality show? He did not nor does he currently host a reality show. He is an accomplished artist and journalist with very wide recognition in Poland and pretty cult following because of his hosting of the Eurovision transmissions. I wholeheartedly disagree with RUNOFTHEMILL label. 84.188.101.102 (talk) 20:28, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Keep. A well-known Polish presenter and Eurovision Song Contest long-running commentator having commentated 26 contests. If we consider this RUNOFTHEMILL, we will need also to consider Peter Urban (presenter), José Luis Uribarri, José María Íñigo and many other well-known Eurovision Song Contest commentators' articles for deletion. Qcumber (talk) 23:34, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

"Well-known" is not a valid reason for deletion. And don't do the Pokemon test. - 178.164.179.49 (talk) 04:36, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry, sir/madam, please, be polite. And explain me what does it mean "pokemon test". And if we need to consider this article for deletion, why don't we need to consider for deletion the articles I mentioned above then?

Thanks! Qcumber (talk) 01:57, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

The only thing that the article is not expanded enough. Because of this 2021 events take the most part of the article. It's not good. The label prompts that someone will at least take the information from Polish Wiki. But I agree with 84.188.101.102 - I don't think that there is a srong reason to delete the article with RUNOFTHEMILL . Qcumber (talk) 02:00, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

• Delete: BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. Source in the article are routine mill entertainment news, promo, nothing that meets WP:SIRS, addressing the subject directly and indepth by independent reliable sources. BEFORE found similar, but nothing meeting WP:SIGCOV. BLPs require strong sourcing.  // Timothy :: talk  15:34, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. He appears to be a well-known Polish journalist, and his references to music broadcasters and cited content appear to be verified.Sanwalniazik (talk) — Sanwalniazik (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Weak keep. Could find more and better sources than on e.g. Fredrik Renander or Amun Abdullahi.Atlassian (talk) 21:49, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Let's focus on existing sourcs that establish notability, not on a subject's reputation or notoriety.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:07, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

A quick googling showed many sources: [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28].

As well as article collections with and about him [29], [30], etc. Atlassian (talk) 06:14, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

• I don't consider myself competent to evaluate their quality, but taken on face value, the Polish Wikipedia version of this page appears more thoroughly referenced. Lubal (talk) 00:50, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
• Keep, obviously passes GNG per sources on our WP page and Polish page, which also include a printed encyclopedia, more is easily findable via Google (see Atlassian examples above). The RUNOFTHEMILL label seems like an excuse to ignore the coverage and not provide an adequate deletion rationale, and describing the subject as a 'reality show host' shows that the IP (who has since made a lot of questionable edits) didn't even bother to read the page, let alone do a minimal WP: BEFORE. --Cavarrone 07:18, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. First thoughts: this article in its current form is rather lopsided to focus on the "dismissal" and reads more like a news article about that occurrence rather than being a biography about Orzech. After review: other editors are correct in pointing out that the sources used here (and actually in the Polish Wiki as well) are passing mentions that he served as commentator, mainly for Eurovision. While at first I was impressed with the size of the Polish Wiki page and the idea that perhaps his bio was more developed there, it is in fact just a prose version of a list of times he'd provided commentary or hosted a program; more like a resume than a biographical overview. The provided sources do not go into any depth about the positions to establish his notability; the sources are instead about the events he was part of. Overall, I do not believe that the subject meets GNG and NBIO. Grk1011 (talk) 13:04, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
• Keep - per coverage which are extensive. Per sourcing which are third party and reliable. Overall I would say WP:GNG applies.BabbaQ (talk) 08:02, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 11:55, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

• Delete. I would concur with Grk1011's assessment of the article. The parts on his background and career at TVP are wholly unsourced, and background is also wholly unsourced on the Polish article. Even within the Polish article, which would be the main start for improving this article, it reads more like a CV/resume than an article, and there are large chunks which are unsourced and thus fails WP:VERIFY. WP:BLP, and specifically WP:BLPRS, means that we have to have sources for any information which is potentially challengeable, which would result in cause for the the first two paragraphs to be likely for removal. Taking that aside, we then have an article which is exclusively about the subject's issues with TVP management and the resultant removal from TVP and return following the change in government; having an article with only this means it would fail on WP:SIGCOV. In general I don't believe even with the sourcing available on the Polish Wikipedia or mentioned here that there is enough verifiable referencing to pass WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 13:10, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
• Weak keep. He is important enough that his departure from TVP in 2021 was covered by Polish newspaper of reknown, Gazeta Wyborcza, [31], and said article even included a (very short, yes) paragraph about his background (earlier career). Considering other sources present, I think the notability is here, sufficient if not impressive. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:47, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
• Keep. He is very popular and recognizable journalist and presenter in Poland. Besides, he is an iranologist and authored a book about Iran, as well as a musician, member of popular rock band. I have expanded the article basing on its Polish version and added some sources. Niegodzisie (talk) 09:41, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
• Keep based on the appreciated expansion by Niegodzisie. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:54, 3 June 2024 (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.

Proposed deletions

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