Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eleanor Beardsley

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. Tending keep, though. Sandstein 19:27, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eleanor Beardsley

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

Subject does not appear to qualify as notable. Hat PRODed this article but another editor removed the prod so am now nominating for deletion via XFD. KDS4444^Talk 05:00, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I'm understanding the problem here - the subject appears to be a staff correspondent of a major international news organisation. I'm not entirely clear how one could be any more notable as a broadcast journalist.User:JMWt, (who, I assume wishes to vote Keep) (user name added by E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:15, 16 November 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Oops, sorry for forgetting my sig. Well I wasn't going to vote because I couldn't find a relevant guideline for journalist notoriety, but heck, if being a foreign correspondent for a major English language (and possibly any language) broadcaster isn't it, then it should be. So yes, what E.M.Gregory says below and a strong keep from me. JMWt (talk) 20:42, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The relevant guideline here is WP:AUTHOR. Merely being a correspondent for a major organisation is insufficient. We need some evidence that this individual is notable in their own right. Bondegezou (talk) 10:47, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
keep Nom is throwing up too many articles at AFD, too fast to have performed WP:BEFORE. As User:JMWt writes above, What are the odds that a long-time NPR correspondent lacks notability? This new article should have been tagged for sourcing, and/or for notability, and given time to acquire sources (I've now added some, I'm sure there are more out there. A search on Furman.edu or her hometown newspaper would be good places to start). Alternatively, someone can offer to help the article's Creator (an inexperienced editor) learn how to build an acceptable article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:23, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That Christian Science Monitor piece you referenced - was she working for CSM at the time, or is this covering her as a third party? If the latter, that would go a good way to establishing notability. That's one of the things that makes this difficult; there are NPR pieces that would help qualify her as notable if she wasn't employed by NPR. (And she certainly passes the first whiff test - i.e., I recognize her name, know who she is.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:17, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly don't know, so I searches christiansciencemonitor.com and found a single 2002 article by Beardsley , byline: By Eleanor Beardsley, Special to The Christian Science Monitor January 10, 2002. Looks like she freelanced for them at least once that year, in January, and in February they ran this brief profile/interview, a sort of poignant vignette about being a reporter in wartime.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:40, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks sufficient sources to pass the General Notability Guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:11, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:01, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Okay, I'm seeing an article growing exponentially after being nominated because editors are finding reliable sources that are notable. --MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 03:50, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:27, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:35, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:35, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:36, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The closest I would go is a weak keep but I'll actually have to say delete for now as although News, browsers and Highbeam found some links, there's not much else to suggest a better article but I am open to drafting and userfying. SwisterTwister talk 05:21, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. no evidence of sufficient notability as a correspondent. I definitely do not assume that it is likely that most correspondents for NPR are notable--neither for them nor any other network. DGG ( talk ) 09:08, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I hear her on the radio all the time and tonight i decided to look her up to more accurately identify her regional accent, because she pronounced the word "route" as "rowt" rather than "root." Her official NPR biography page did not state where she was born and raised -- but her Wikipedia bio did. Hurray for Wikipedia. This article was useful and simply exactly what i was looking for! 75.101.104.17 (talk) 08:32, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Jkudlick ^tc_s 09:39, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the article is reliably and verifiably sourced. I just added a little info, some more sources, but, overall, that IP has a point: this is a article readers expect to find on Wikipedia. IMO, that makes it the sort of article we should keep. And searches show that her work is widely cited in books and (non-NPR) articles, meeting WP:JOURNALIST #1.) : "is widely cited by peers." E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:26, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. References look ok to me, especially the CSM story which has an autobiographical profile. I can see it via ProQuest. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:05, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Beardsley's prodigous output (more than a thousand articles on HighBeam, for instance) makes it difficult to filter out the things written by her to find things written about her. However, paging through the citations of her work on Google Scholar, InfoTRAC, etc., makes a persuassive case that she meets WP:JOURNALIST criterion 1: "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors." Worldbruce (talk) 21:00, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per past precedent in keeping notable journalists; see e.g., Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pete_Williams_(journalist). Bearian (talk) 22:34, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep She is a well-known journalist, but the coverage is a little thin. I do agree with Worldbruce that she meets WP:JOURNALIST criterion 1. --Bejnar (talk) 05:12, 9 December 2015 (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.