Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Bushell
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 of the debate was Delete. Proto//type 14:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Andrew Bushell[edit]
(Auto)biography about a non-notable American journalist. --David Iberri (talk) 23:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks notable to me.Ace of Sevens 00:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]- In what way does the article establish notability? Having written for various papers, being educated at Georgetown, and having covered "the war" does not in itself warrant an encyclopedia article (per WP:BIO). On top of this, I have a strong suspicion that this was originally an autobiography by Bushell himself (based on the POV tone and on phrases such as "One of his most important influences was..."). As such, the article as it stands reads like the prosified resume of a non-notable journalist trying to make a name for himself. (I should note that there is perhaps a conflict of interest in my contributing to this deletion proposal as I have met Bushell through a common acquaintance.) --David Iberri (talk) 04:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- He's written significant amounts for notable papers. You don't exactly need to be Walter Cronkite to be notable. Ace of Sevens 07:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The Walter Cronkite point is a straw man. I have only stated that the article does not establish notability per WP:BIO and WP:AUTO, not that journalists must be as noteworthy as Cronkite to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia. However, biographies are commonly included in Wikipedia only for individuals with a reasonable degree of fame. This extends to journalists as well. Merely writing "significant amounts for notable papers" does not a notable journalist make.
Implicit in my earlier argument above is a deeper concern that, owing to his non-notability, a sufficiently WP:NPOV article cannot be written about Bushell: as it stands, the current autobiography is unverifiable, relying almost wholly on original research. Extensive googling (which FWIW provides only a few dozen relevant results) reveals that neither he nor his works have been the subject of review. Thus, it would be impossible to elaborate on Bushell beyond his being an American journalist without violating Wikipedia:No original research. Non-notability, unverifiability, and the subsequent impossibility of writing an article without violating NPOV and NOR are sufficient reasons to Delete. --David Iberri (talk) 16:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]- WP:VAIN also applies here. --David Iberri (talk) 03:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- We seem to disagree on what the cut-off for notability is. I see he's written plenty for some prominent papers and won an award for his work on organ transplants. I think that's good enough. You apparently don't. Ace of Sevens 02:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You seem to have assumed that Google's results for "Andrew Bushell" all refer to the same person. As I alluded to above, this isn't the case. The individual who won an award for organ transplant work is Andrew Bushell, MD. The individual who posted a vanity article to Wikipedia is Andrew Bushell, journalist. These are two different people.
Now that we've established that, and given my additional arguments above regarding WP:VERIFY, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and WP:BIO, can we agree that this article is not appropriate for Wikipedia and should be deleted? Cheers, David Iberri (talk) 13:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You seem to have assumed that Google's results for "Andrew Bushell" all refer to the same person. As I alluded to above, this isn't the case. The individual who won an award for organ transplant work is Andrew Bushell, MD. The individual who posted a vanity article to Wikipedia is Andrew Bushell, journalist. These are two different people.
- The Walter Cronkite point is a straw man. I have only stated that the article does not establish notability per WP:BIO and WP:AUTO, not that journalists must be as noteworthy as Cronkite to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia. However, biographies are commonly included in Wikipedia only for individuals with a reasonable degree of fame. This extends to journalists as well. Merely writing "significant amounts for notable papers" does not a notable journalist make.
- He's written significant amounts for notable papers. You don't exactly need to be Walter Cronkite to be notable. Ace of Sevens 07:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- In what way does the article establish notability? Having written for various papers, being educated at Georgetown, and having covered "the war" does not in itself warrant an encyclopedia article (per WP:BIO). On top of this, I have a strong suspicion that this was originally an autobiography by Bushell himself (based on the POV tone and on phrases such as "One of his most important influences was..."). As such, the article as it stands reads like the prosified resume of a non-notable journalist trying to make a name for himself. (I should note that there is perhaps a conflict of interest in my contributing to this deletion proposal as I have met Bushell through a common acquaintance.) --David Iberri (talk) 04:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete A vanity piece, he needs to win some awards or have other people notice his work enough to know who he is. Williamb 14:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This is a resume or CV. I'm not sure if this is relevant, but a cross check reveals that while the article states "he moved to Afganistan and Pakistan to help cover the war for the Economist," the Columbia Journalism Review states he was a "free-lance writer who spent ten months covering the conflict in Afghanistan." RapidMotion 19:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I changed my mind because the only Google results that are actually him seem to be articles he wrote. There's no evidence anyone is discussing his work. Ace of Sevens 20:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Wikipedia is not paper, if you care about Google hits you ignore the 100,000 years or so of human history before 1995. Snugspout 20:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is not paper, but it does make a reasonable attempt at being an encyclopedia, one with certain inclusion requirements for its articles. "Wikipedia is not paper" is not a valid argument against deletion in the face of WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:BIO, and WP:VERIFY. Cheers, David Iberri (talk) 22:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- if you care about Google hits you ignore the 100,000 years or so of human history before 1995 Right, because as is well known, Google automatically filters out every web page that mentions anything taking place before 1995, including the Middle Paleolithic period 100,000 years ago. [1] Whoops, that slipped through. --Calton | Talk 07:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is not paper, but it does make a reasonable attempt at being an encyclopedia, one with certain inclusion requirements for its articles. "Wikipedia is not paper" is not a valid argument against deletion in the face of WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:BIO, and WP:VERIFY. Cheers, David Iberri (talk) 22:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Wikipedia is not the Yellow Pages, nor is it a journalist's directory. Standard alumni-association bio of a working foreign correspondent, otherwise non-notable.--Calton | Talk 07:23, 16 June 2006 (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.