Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greg Miskiw

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 keep. — Joseph Fox 17:21, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Miskiw

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

Fails WP:BLP1E Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 10:19, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a bit of a trawl to see if there's enough media coverage of Miskiw outside of the phone hacking scandal. This is what I've come up with.

1982 - Passing mention from The Age. Single sentence only.

2003 Peter Rose employment tribunal. Specific named criticism of Miskiw.

Chicago reader. Story arises in the context of phone hacking but is actually about Miskiw's role in an earlier court trial.

Beyond that everything else is phone hacking related. It may also be worth bearing in mind that I don't believe that the police have formally identified the man arrested as Miskiw (although Sky made a definite identification some of the others were still hedging their bets a little). There may also be others on the list of those arrested and questioned by Operation Weeting that have a similar level of coverage, Ian Edmondson, for example. Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 10:32, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:14, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep His press coverage extends backward from the current controversy. See for example the earlier years from a search on the Guardian news archive. These may be borderline notability without the current situation, but in combination, it seems reasonable to retain the article. AllyD (talk) 18:18, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 15:16, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 15:16, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per AllyD. His job title and position make him notable I would think, even if there's not much information about him. I created this as a redirect feeling it would be useful with the ongoing events in which he is involved, but hesitated in creating an actual article because I wanted to see what other information became available. If others disagree about his notability, however, then redirecting the page back to News International phone hacking scandal seems like a reasonable compromise to me. TheRetroGuy (talk) 15:33, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:Creative, which would seem to be the closest guideline out there, doesn't seem to fit too well here. Still, I've had a bit more of a look at some of the articles in the Guardian's database that AllyD linked to. There are some more there eg. [1], [2] (mostly news about re-organisations at NoW which make for interesting reading given everything that's happened). Maybe there's enough for a full article rather than a redirect. I think I might have a go at expanding the current stub and see how it turns out with a few more sources in it. We can, as you say, always turn it back into a redirect. Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 23:34, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is notable for more than merely his involvment in the current News Corp scandal, and his involvement in that pushes him over the notability threshold. The article in its current form is clearly of an unacceptable quality though. If I have time I will try to do some work on it.Rangoon11 (talk) 23:23, 16 August 2011 (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.