Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Graham Richardson (journalist)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Spartaz Humbug! 11:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Graham Richardson (journalist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Doesn't satisfy the criteria detailed at WP:CREATIVE (which includes journalists), hasn't been widely cited by peers or successors, no new concepts/techniques/major roles/critical attention or significant contributions. (WP:ENTERTAINER does not apply here, per discussion here.) [1][2][3][4] (N.B. Not to be confused with Graham Richardson, politician) ƒ(Δ)² 18:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: per WP:BIO..South Bay (talk) 00:05, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as meeting the qualifications of WP:ENTERTAINER which specifically includes "Actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and television personalities". This was brought out in the above referenced discussion. The guidelines of WP:CREATIVE and WP:ENTERTAINER are not mutually exclusive as both fall under the guiding principles of WP:BIO and WP:GNG. If a journalist is also a television journalist, he becomes a television personality and/or opinion-maker and may be judged by both or either subordinate criteria, or we may simply swim back upstream to BIO or GNG. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 03:05, 15 October 2009
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 13:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete, I think WP:CREATIVE is more applicable than WP:ENTERTAINER, and I don't think his work so far is sufficient to meet the notability guideline. That said, he is a national TV correspondent and generally, people in such roles have articles. PKT(alk) 18:31, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As subsets of WP:BIO, the two are not mutually exclusive and often overlap. While certainly most sources available are CTV reporting about CTV, Graham is also covered in other sources. For instance, as far back as 2002 he received international coverage when London's Sunday Mirror reported on him. And just this year alone, The Hill Times had several articles dealing with Graham and his work... evidencing coverage over a 7-year span that shows notability through meeting WP:GNG. He is even written of in that other minor encyclopedia... Britannica [5]. Why would he good enough for them and not us? I believe the stub can properly grow and be sourced... but that would seem a matter for tagging and cleanup, not deletion. Best, MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 19:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I realize I'm preaching to the choir, but the article needs the additional references to which you refer. PKT(alk) 12:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Aw shucks... now I have homework. I'll add some when I have time after work today. Best regards, MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 15:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I realize I'm preaching to the choir, but the article needs the additional references to which you refer. PKT(alk) 12:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As subsets of WP:BIO, the two are not mutually exclusive and often overlap. While certainly most sources available are CTV reporting about CTV, Graham is also covered in other sources. For instance, as far back as 2002 he received international coverage when London's Sunday Mirror reported on him. And just this year alone, The Hill Times had several articles dealing with Graham and his work... evidencing coverage over a 7-year span that shows notability through meeting WP:GNG. He is even written of in that other minor encyclopedia... Britannica [5]. Why would he good enough for them and not us? I believe the stub can properly grow and be sourced... but that would seem a matter for tagging and cleanup, not deletion. Best, MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 19:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Agree, he meets WP:ENTERTAINER requirements. Dream Focus 14:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Article is still undergoing improvements. It now shows meeting BIO and BLP, but I'll keep at it. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:03, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep He was awarded twice, thus should have an independent article.--RekishiEJ (talk) 22:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. He seems to just barely qualify under WP:ENTERTAINER and/or WP:CREATIVE. I think it's reasonable to consider him under the Entertainer rubric due to his television status, and under creative rubric due to his journalist position. I feel that the awards he has received, as well as perhaps (though maybe this is stretching it) a significant following due to the news. Just barely crossing the threshold, I think, but crossing it nonetheless in my opinion. Cocytus [»talk«] 03:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.