Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben Swann
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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:27, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ben Swann[edit]
- Ben Swann (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I nominate Ben Swann for deletion because he lacks notability. Swann is a journalist, or a "creative professional," and therefore the six relevant notability criteria can be found at WP:Creative. He doesn't meet any of these. In failing to meet criterion 1), he is not "widely cited by" notable peer journalists; in failing to meet 2), is not used as "an expert source by major news sources or publications" (and in fact, doesn't appear to be cited by virtually any reliable (much less notable) news sources apart from the local Fox Affiliate where he works); failing to meet 3), has not "originated a new concept/theory/technique"; failing to meet 4/5), has not been featured in a well known book/film/monument/exhibition; and has not won significant critical attention from notable sources for his work. (Criterion 6 does not apply to him, as it specifically relates to academics) Also, everything on his Wikipedia page appears to be primary source/OR. He seems to be a reliable and skillful local journalist (hence his winning some state of Texas journalist awards), but he's nowhere near notable. Indeed, the vast majority of his Internet/Facebook mentions appear to be from libertarians who appreciate the fact that he used his platform as a newscaster to attempt to defend 2012 Presidential Candidate Ron Paul, in the heat of his President bid, from allegations related to Ron Paul newsletters. (Interestingly, Swan's Wikipedia page was created one and a half weeks after his January 4th story defending Ron Paul.) Deletion is, in my judgment, an easy call Steeletrap (talk) 19:23, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I was suspicious of this nomination because it seeks to gain credibility by checking off the list from WP:CREATIVE as the measure for "Creative professionals". The list is not meant to be used in this way, and, in fact, most journalists who have been included in Wikipedia would fail to meet most of those points. If he truly failed to meet ALL criteria then that would be grounds for speedy delete. This is what the list is used for, but that is not done here. More important, the basic notability requirements found in WP:Notability still applies. Crtew (talk) 22:49, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:40, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:41, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:41, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:41, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Anchor in Cincinnati whose achievements are far from Jerry Springer or basically any local news anchor. Nate • (chatter) 21:51, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment [by OP] I found one RS from the Washington Post that talks about Swann and the discussion is not flattering. It confirms my suspicion that Swann's Internet fame arose from his deciding to defend Ron Paul on the newsletters thing. It says that "Swann allows his affection for constitutionalist politics to corrupt his judgment" which led to his giving biased covering of the newsletters story. It also notes that his purported original "reporting" in the newsletters scandal (of the author who wrote one of the newsletters) wasn't original at all, and was indeed documented by Kirchick in his original work on the scandal. Steeletrap (talk) 23:25, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not true that his WP:SIGCOV is about one event. He's made a number of controversial reports, such as on Sandy Hook. The comment above is making a value judgment about his reporting, which is not the purpose of an AfD.Crtew (talk) 23:30, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, no. I do not make a "value judgment" above. I paraphrase one of the only RS ever written on Swann, which accuses him of bias (and contains the value judgment that bias is bad). Please re-read the above to see your mistake. Steeletrap (talk) 15:00, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not true that his WP:SIGCOV is about one event. He's made a number of controversial reports, such as on Sandy Hook. The comment above is making a value judgment about his reporting, which is not the purpose of an AfD.Crtew (talk) 23:30, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment [by OP] I found one RS from the Washington Post that talks about Swann and the discussion is not flattering. It confirms my suspicion that Swann's Internet fame arose from his deciding to defend Ron Paul on the newsletters thing. It says that "Swann allows his affection for constitutionalist politics to corrupt his judgment" which led to his giving biased covering of the newsletters story. It also notes that his purported original "reporting" in the newsletters scandal (of the author who wrote one of the newsletters) wasn't original at all, and was indeed documented by Kirchick in his original work on the scandal. Steeletrap (talk) 23:25, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – First, article has WP:POTENTIAL. Second, criteria 1 is met by Erik Wemple's Washington Post commentary (thank you, OP), the Murrow Award, and the Texas Media Emmy's. – S. Rich (talk) 05:13, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment [by OP] Moderately prestigious State journalists awards show reliability but not notability, as evidenced by the fact that most people with those awards should/do not have Wikipedia pages. As to the RS/Swann's fame generally, it fits perfectly with WP:1E. Those guidelines tell us that people who are only famous or one event (as Swann seems to be; there are no RS of him I can find other than the WP one related to his coverage on Ron Paul Newsletters) should generally be deleted. The exception is "that if the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one" (e.g., Monica Lewinsky's role in the Impeachment of Bill Clinton). It is dubious that the Ron Paul newsletters thing is "highly significant" and obviously false that Swann's role in the story was large, given that his commentary received virtually (literally?) no coverage in RS other than the Post article, and given that the Post article says that Swann's "reporting" contributed nothing that was not previously covered by Kirchick. Steeletrap (talk) 06:36, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- In addition to the inappropriate comment above for an AfD, I would add that it not this is not the place for the nominator be judging Swann's reporting to be "biased".Crtew (talk) 23:30, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, reporting that one of the only RS that has ever discussed him calls him biased is not the same as me personally calling him bias. Please re-read my comments and acknowledge your mistake, so you can withdraw your inappropriate remarks about me acting "inappropriate[ly". Steeletrap (talk) 15:02, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- In addition to the inappropriate comment above for an AfD, I would add that it not this is not the place for the nominator be judging Swann's reporting to be "biased".Crtew (talk) 23:30, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment [by OP] Moderately prestigious State journalists awards show reliability but not notability, as evidenced by the fact that most people with those awards should/do not have Wikipedia pages. As to the RS/Swann's fame generally, it fits perfectly with WP:1E. Those guidelines tell us that people who are only famous or one event (as Swann seems to be; there are no RS of him I can find other than the WP one related to his coverage on Ron Paul Newsletters) should generally be deleted. The exception is "that if the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one" (e.g., Monica Lewinsky's role in the Impeachment of Bill Clinton). It is dubious that the Ron Paul newsletters thing is "highly significant" and obviously false that Swann's role in the story was large, given that his commentary received virtually (literally?) no coverage in RS other than the Post article, and given that the Post article says that Swann's "reporting" contributed nothing that was not previously covered by Kirchick. Steeletrap (talk) 06:36, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 14:39, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Not very compelling changes, in my judgment. Writing an article for the Christian Broadcasting Network does not make one notable. The 2012 Presidential third party debate event hosted by Larry King, which the Washington Times piece briefly notes Swann served as a "panel member" at, was not televised by CNN (or any TV network) and ended up garnering little publicity; should every journalist who participated as a "panel member" in this be deemed notable? The other claims you make about "national attention" Swann drew in 2012 (a misleading characterization, since that implies broad-based media attention rather than one article along with a lot of Ron Paul people liking him on Facebook/promoting him on non-notable websites) are poorly source (from non-notable sources or from Swann's local Affiliate itself) or else are not new (Above I cover the WaPo article that talks about Swann's internet fame deriving from (in their judgment) biased, pro-Paul coverage of the Ron Paul Newsletters scandal during the 2012 GOP Primaries.)Steeletrap (talk) 13:57, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Swann passes WP:SIGCOV for his more controversial reporting. Despite what the nominator says above, Swann's journalism has been referred to in multiple reports and from reliable sources. It should be noted that receiving widespread coverage is not typical for local TV journalists. He also has won top awards multiple times that do satisfy WP:ANYBIO. I found the arguments to dismiss his awards above not to be persuasive as those awards are themselves found in Wikipedia and pass notability. Additionally, he has repeatedly won awards. Local TV journalists are included throughout Wikipedia, which seems to be forgotten in many of the comments made so far.Crtew (talk) 23:17, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Fresh Content. I too have added additional sources to the article, as well as organized and cleaned it up. The article is not in the state the nominator found it in when this process began.Crtew (talk) 23:21, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – I endorse Crtew's comments, and complement him on the article improvement. Moreover, given his expertise in journalism and well established editing history, I expect (and hope) that his views will have much greater weight when the decision must be made. (Is this fair, or even nice? Well, WP:NOTDEMOCRACY.) (And was the WP:Creative guidance well written? Indeed, not. Its' scope included academics, etc., who have their own criteria in a section just above. (That problem has been remedied.) Perhaps, Crtew, you can improve the criteria for journalists notability? ) – S. Rich (talk) 21:40, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I do not think journalistic expertise holds much sway in a discussion about WP rules/regulations (it would be another story if we were being asked to asses Swann's credibility/competence as a journalist, but we are being asked to assess his notability as defined by Wikipedia rules). His arguments should, in nay case, be evaluated in their own right rather than uncritically accepted based on an appeal to authority. As it stands, his arguments don't seem to work. Whether or not we like how the rules are written, Swann fails WP:Creative. He also fails WP:ANYBIO, as there is no evidence that he "has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field." (What reporting is part of the "enduring historical record"? What reporting is "widely recognized" by RS as being so important?) Steeletrap (talk) 14:59, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – I endorse Crtew's comments, and complement him on the article improvement. Moreover, given his expertise in journalism and well established editing history, I expect (and hope) that his views will have much greater weight when the decision must be made. (Is this fair, or even nice? Well, WP:NOTDEMOCRACY.) (And was the WP:Creative guidance well written? Indeed, not. Its' scope included academics, etc., who have their own criteria in a section just above. (That problem has been remedied.) Perhaps, Crtew, you can improve the criteria for journalists notability? ) – S. Rich (talk) 21:40, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Fresh Content. I too have added additional sources to the article, as well as organized and cleaned it up. The article is not in the state the nominator found it in when this process began.Crtew (talk) 23:21, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The nominator himself admits that the subject has recived coverage in reliable third party sources. We do not limit articles to those who meet some vague requirement of being "truly unbiased journalist". The nomination seems to be tained by a desire to withhold recognition from those who the nominator has political disagreements with. This person's works are followed and of note, we should have an article on him.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:38, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment People are really having issues reading my actual comments. I never said Swann was "biased" (quite the opposite, I praised him as a "reliable and skillful" local jouranlist). I only reported that one of the few RS on him (from the Washington Post) said he was (should I have claimed that the RS said something it didn't say?). The argument is about notability, not reliability, and discussion about Swann in one or two RS (on one issue) does not make him notable. Steeletrap (talk) 16:17, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Article's subject does not meet WP:CREATIVE; sources are almost entirely self-published (by Swann's employers), WP:ROUTINE or non-independent (local industry). Miniapolis 14:46, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Edward R. Murrow Award establishes notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:28, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Only one of the RTNDA Edward R. Murrow Awards (from 2002; none of the awards is reliably sourced) is a national one; the other two (2003 and 2004) are regional awards so it's debatable whether this constitutes "significant critical attention" (there are a lot of RTNDA Murrow awards, just at the national level). All the best, Miniapolis 00:30, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:BARE and WP:HEY. He's been shown to be notable enough. Bearian (talk) 16:48, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deadbeef 23:27, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Wait: he left Fox to start something else: let's see what he does and if that's enough to earn him an article on Wikipedia... --Rubyface (talk) 09:45, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep We have to decide something for now, and what he has already done has made him a national figure. DGG ( talk ) 23:17, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Journalism awards are how the journalism community recognises its members and gives them "critical attention". has won significant critical attention is thus pertinent here. Collect (talk) 08:38, 21 May 2013 (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.