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[edit]

Howard Lerner[edit]

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

Reviewed during NPP. No indicatiob of wp:notability under SNG or GNG. Basic resume type material. Was a journalist, then started a coffee house, then a coffee flavoring company and now runs a web design company. The closest thing to a GNG references is (circa now) #3 which is an interview. #1 is a bio on his employer's web site, #2 appears to be a self-written bio. Tagged by others for notability since January. North8000 (talk) 18:58, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, and Missouri. Shellwood (talk) 19:01, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete: Tax accountant, a doctor and an obituary for three unrelated people are what I find... Nothing about this individual, who appears to have had a rather routine life. I don't see why he's notable. Oaktree b (talk) 00:01, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[]

Mayank Shekhar[edit]

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

Article does not meet WP:GNG and WP:JOURNALIST. Subject did receive an award Ramnath Goenka Award for Excellence in Journalism. Source 1 is a book review, source 2 is a blog, source 3 has a passing comment made by the subject himself, source 4 is a review by subject himself, source 5 is a bio written by subject himself, source 6 is more on bio written by subject himself, source 7 is a link to Ramnath Goenka Award and source 8 is a book written by subject himself. Many unreliable and primary sources here. RangersRus (talk) 15:39, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[]

If the award is judged significant enough, he could meet WP:ANYBIO. If his books have received coverage that is judged sufficiently significant (including the review you mention, or https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/name-place-animal-thing-of-bollywood-trivia-popular-culture/articleshow/52685080.cms or https://www.spectralhues.com/news/bookreview-name-place-animal-thing-mayank-shekhar/), he might also meet WP:AUTHOR. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:56, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[]

TOI makes it under WP:NEWSORGINDIA. I still do not find his books a significant monument or been a substantial part of a significant exhibition or won wide significant critical attention by well known peers and critics in secondary independent sources. RangersRus (talk) 18:49, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[]

TOI falling under NEWSORGINDIA is an interpretation that I respect but with which I disagree in this case (not great journalism but not simply unreliable). The fact that the author of the book is one of the film critics of the Hindustan Times also indicates the article in the TOI should be rather independent.-- -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:53, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[]

Note about the Times of India: The Sources noticeboard says not to use it for political subject matters for example, which the Indian task force clarifies: "Uncontroversial content such as film reviews are usable". Consensus is that concern about retributed coverage exists, but not to the point of making it unreliable. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:50, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Journalism, Film, and India. RangersRus (talk) 15:39, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[]

Keep - clearly notable; a prolific film critic who is also known for his in-depth interviews with major film stars. The Ramnath Goenka Award for Excellence in Journalism is no mean achievement, and he is the first film critic to have received it. I have added a reference for an interview with him for the The Asian Age. At best, the article needs expansion, certainly not deletion. Shahid • ^Talk2me 18:03, 3 July 2024 (UTC)— Note to closing admin: Shshshsh (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. []

Indeed, I should have mentioned that I hapeen to have been the creator of this page many years back. I actually didn't even remember I was the one who created it, as I've created numerous pages for notable Indian film critics. As someone who has worked on Indian cinema-related articles, I can attest to the relevance of his reviews on dozens of film articles, including several FAs. Him being an author as well as the winner of a notable award only consolidates my position. Shahid • ^Talk2me 18:34, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[]

Keep, see my reply to nomination above.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:07, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[]

Grapevine (disk magazine)[edit]

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

I am struggling to find sources that discuss Grapevine in depth. Per the article's own description, it was "a [d]isk magazine for the Commodore Amiga published by the [d]emo scene group LSD." (my bold emphasis added). A publication by none other than those involved in the demoscene would have a high bar to clear in order to count as notable. Predictably, the few sources I can dig up refer to it passingly, and some old Amiga magazines did look at Grapevine, but from what I saw, they were reviewing the disk magazine's issues, not writing about its importance or influence in the Amiga community. The only thing that can save this article is if others happen to find more information about Grapevine, and in depth, which I could not. Free Media Kid$ 23:41, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Computing. Free Media Kid$ 23:41, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:56, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[]

Amiga Active[edit]

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

Probably this magazine was popular among the few users who clung onto the Amiga, but the OS had been dead for five years when Amiga Active was launched, and I found no evidence as to why the magazine is notable. Simply put, this article does not pass notability muster and is a permastub. Free Media Kid$ 22:44, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Video games, and Computing. Free Media Kid$ 22:44, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[]

Comment Note AmigaOS 3.5 was released in October 1999 (the same month the magazine was introduced), so at least this part of the AfD nomination is not entirely true (there were few updates even before that - eg. new Installer utility and support for drives bigger than 4 GB). The article in question mentions a connection to former CU Amiga staff, maybe a simple redirect to our Commodore User article may be the best course of action here (the article subject is mentioned there and I may be able to find a proper source for this information). Pavlor (talk) 05:31, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[]

Phil Amato[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBIO; lede reads like a TV guide. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 00:56, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, News media, Television, and Florida. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 00:56, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Keep: The Florida Times-Union source already in the article along with [[1]] and [[2]] each contain multiple sentences of in-depth, significant coverage of the subject. I'd say the WP:GNG is met here, and while this article needs to be improved, WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Let'srun (talk) 01:10, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete. Refs. 1 and 2 are not independent coverage, and the other sources here and in the article are pretty routine local coverage, failing WP:NOTNEWS (routine news coverage of announcements, events, sports, or celebrities ... is not by itself a sufficient basis for inclusion of the subject of that coverage) – for examples, here are two similar articles from this year. Note that this person seems to be different from the member of the Missouri House of Representatives of the same name, who would be notable under WP:NPOL. RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:56, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete I didn't find anything better than the sources here above, and those do not approach notability. Routine reports of changing jobs in a local or regional paper are not near what would be needed to rise to GNG. Lamona (talk) 04:50, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[]

Firstfruits[edit]

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

Sustained, independent coverage in one article. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SUSTAINED. Longhornsg (talk) 21:04, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Military. Longhornsg (talk) 21:04, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:22, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[]

FASCIA (database)[edit]

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

Delete or merge into National Security Agency. One of many databases used by the security agency. Fails WP:SUSTAINED and independent notability as a database separate from its use by the NSA and its inclusion in the global surveillance disclosures. Longhornsg (talk) 21:02, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Military. Longhornsg (talk) 21:02, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:22, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Billy Pinnell[edit]

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

This fails WP:BASIC and WP:GNG. An article about a non notable sports journalist that died in the 1970s, which the article is strangely written like the person knew them. Doesn't seem much is readily available, if there is any, about them unless someone has access to old British Newspapers. GamerPro64 04:14, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, and Sports. GamerPro64 04:14, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:08, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete: No available online sources at this time to demonstrate WP:SIGCOV and meet WP:GNG. Prof.PMarini (talk) 05:09, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Comment: there's some coverage in newspapers for which he was a contributor, so I don't think it's independent. Hack (talk) 05:24, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[]

Erel Segal[edit]

(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)[]

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)[]

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)[]

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

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)[]

#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)[]

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)[]

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)[]

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)[]

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)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:13, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete: There's coverage that mentions him, such as the DW article, but these aren't about this person. This [3] also mentions him, but just barely as the article talks about his employer. We don't have enough substantial coverage to keep the article Oaktree b (talk) 03:23, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[]
I don't think that "mentions him, but just barely " is a fair assessment of [4] - the article is about an event in which he is the main subject - his employer suspended him for something he did. He is the subject of both the headline and the sub-headline, he is the main topic of the first and second paragraphs ("The Kan public broadcasting corporation on Thursday suspended one of its anchors because he appeared in a video"; "News presenter Erel Segal was suspended, pending further notice, after the video was uploaded to Netanyahu’s Twitter account earlier Thursday."), he is mentioned in the 3rd and 4th paragraphs and is the subject of the 5th, there's a quote from the PM of Israel about him etc... Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 14:16, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Keep. A very well-known journalist in Israel, and there are many sources for this. In addition, he is also a writer (2 books) and a musician. (Full disclosure: I wrote the article). HaOfa (talk) 09:33, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 14:55, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[]

Katherine Salant[edit]

(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)[]

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)[]

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)[]

Keep: Enough coverage of her books to pass AUTHOR [5], [6], [7] Oaktree b (talk) 22:12, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:28, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Keep: The article meets the notability criteria for authors. The information is well-sourced and relevant to our readers. I vote to keep it. Waqar💬 16:10, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[]
@Iwaqarhashmi please look at WP:!VOTE, AfD discussions are not polls. Broc (talk) 15:12, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[]

*Keep Sources provided by Oaktree b above are sufficient to satisfy ~~WP:AUTHOR. Sal2100 (talk) 21:20, 27 June 2024 (UTC)~~[]

@Sal2100 Per WP:NAUTHOR 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. So far I see one independent review posted by Oaktree b, and there is one extremely short blurb in Publisher's Weekly as mentioned below. No other independent reviews have been found, so I wonder how you think the criterion is fulfilled? Broc (talk) 15:11, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete Changing from previous !vote after re-evaluation based on Broc's comments immediately above. Sal2100 (talk) 20:12, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete My main concerns are 1) that there are no independent sources and 2) I cannot find any sources for the awards. The Houston Chronicle source on the last one does not verify that award. One book got a review in Publishers' Weekly but that isn't really enough. Lamona (talk) 02:24, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[]
@Oaktree b pointed out some additional coverage above, of which one is an independent review in a published source. The other two are coverage of her books in newspapers for which she writes/wrote. Two reviews for a book are in my opinion far from sufficient to fulfill WP:NAUTHOR. Broc (talk) 15:07, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[]
I would be more enthused if those reviews were in major publications. The Gadsden Times and Sarasota Herald-Tribune don't impress me. And the Lodi review says: "...I have never encountered a book as hard to read as this one" and goes on to pan the book in other aspects. So, no, I don't think these sources are sufficient. And may I say that there is nothing in the policies that says: any 2 reviews = author notability. First, reviews can be negative, so we should read them and not just count them. Then, there is a matter of IMPORT. The actual policy criteria at WP:AUTHOR are pretty intense - but they come down to the question of whether the person has made a significant contribution to a field of study or an area of art, and whether there is evidence that the contribution is recognized by peers. Writing two books on how to buy and sell property - books that do not appear to have gotten national attention - doesn't rise to that level, IMO. Lamona (talk) 05:37, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The delete arguments do seem a bit stronger based on Wikipedia policy, but a clearer consensus might be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:32, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[]

Proposed deletions[edit]

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