Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erik Schatzker

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 delete. Tone 07:29, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Erik Schatzker[edit]

[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)

WP:BLP of a television journalist, not properly sourced as passing WP:GNG. As always, every journalist is not automatically entitled to an article just because his existence can technically be verified by his own primary source staff profiles -- to get a Wikipedia article, he has to be the subject of coverage in sources that don't issue his paycheque. But this is referenced solely to a staff profile, and as so often happens with journalists it's written more like a thinly veiled rewrite of that staff profile than like a proper encyclopedia article. Bearcat (talk) 14:41, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:13, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:13, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:13, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 08:33, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per WP:NEXIST as they certainly are some non-primary sources available, it's just a matter of incorporating them into the article. Even then, I find that may just barely be enough for WP:GNG Handoto (talk) 17:05, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to know what non-primary sources you're talking about, because apart from Bloomberg's own content about itself all I can find is one short piece in Men's Health about his exercise routine (which is not notability-assisting coverage, because it doesn't exist in the context of anything relevant to whether he passes our notability criteria for journalists or not.) Bearcat (talk) 21:51, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:35, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 02:08, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Still no consensus even after two relists
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 03:35, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not only lacking in significant coverage from independent sources but also from the primary ones. Fails WP:JOURNALIST, doesn't have any exceptional quality that makes him different from all other news anchors world over. –Ammarpad (talk) 21:04, 11 October 2018 (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.