Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don Martin (journalist)

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!} 03:41, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don Martin (journalist)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Non-notable local journalist - no RS about his career that rises to the level of GNG. Juniperesque (talk) 03:45, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Juniperesque (talk) 03:45, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Television, Canada, and New York. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:43, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:45, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails Wikipedia:NJOURNALIST no significant independent coverage. GoldMiner24 ^Talk 10:32, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Firstly, he's not just a local journalist; he started out that way, but later became a national columnist and a national anchor on a national news channel, which are roles that do satisfy NJOURNALIST. Secondly, this was a more balanced and better-referenced article in the past, which was turned into a primary sourced rewrite of his CTV staff profile only a few months ago by a new editor whose edit history carries hints of "paid public relations consultant" — but I've returned and properly sourced some of the content that got scrubbed last fall. Thirdly, for a person whose career has stretched over 40 years, not all of his best sourcing is necessarily going to Google well, but instead will have to be retrieved from archives, and I've recovered more than enough proper non-CTV sourcing from ProQuest to eliminate the problem. Bearcat (talk) 13:47, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with thanks to Bearcat for fixing the article up. See WP:HEY. The sources now cited in the article appear to establish notability (particularly when combined with possible offline sources), and while I don't have access to all of them I assume that they provide significant coverage. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:10, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:01, 3 March 2022 (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.