Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Ryan (reporter)

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. There is a weak consensus among editors that weighed in for keep, but the secondary sourcing is there, and there are clearly additional places for research of further WP:RS secondary sources. -- Cirt (talk) 15:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Ryan (reporter)

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

no sources or claims to notability Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 02:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Anchoring Good Day New York, hosting A Current Affair, anchoring the main morning WCBS-TV news show CBS 2 News This Morning are all not claims to notability? Not surprisingly it took only a few seconds to find several secondary sources giving significant coverage to this topic.[1] [2][3][4][5] WCBS-TV called him a "news icon" [6] No sources in an article of a notable topic is a reason to place a sources tag, not delete the article. --Oakshade (talk) 06:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The aforementioned shows are not claims to notability in an of themselves, unless you count WP:LOCAL. The Current Affair gives him a single passing mention, nigh an afterthought.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 15:34, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By "local" I suppose you mean the over 19 million population New York metropolitan area in which those television stations in which the topic was an anchor on serve, then I suppose you are correct. WP:LOCAL is not a notability guideline but an essay that explains how to write article of topics that are of local interest.--Oakshade (talk) 16:28, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:55, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:55, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Well known personality. Sources support notability. Geofth (talk) 20:29, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This !vote is pretty much invalidated by the fact that there are, oh I dunno, no sources in the article. Tarc (talk) 14:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources do not yet have to be in the article. WP:NOTABILITY states very clearly:

"Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Notability requires only the existence of suitable reliable sources, not their immediate citation."

Clearly sources exist that establish notability as indicated above. --Oakshade (talk) 19:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Major market news anchor. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:05, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since "being a news anchor isn't a criteria of the WP:GNG, would you care to point out which criteria of WP:CREATIVE (IMO the closest sub-notability guideline) this person meets? Tarc (talk) 14:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No assertion of notability made in the article, could have easily been a speedy. Tarc (talk) 14:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anchoring a popular nation television program and two newscasts in the largest media market in North America is an assertion of notability. If this was speedy deleted, it would've easily been overturned in DRV.--Oakshade (talk) 19:47, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Really? So this person satisfies all the criteria of WP:ANCHORMAN ? Oh, wait...it doesn't exist, so we go by what does exist, which is WP:CREATIVE, where he fails 1 thru 5. Being a news anchor of a city (not national) news show is not an automatic notability qualifier. Neither is the brief stint at a Current Affair. I'm sorry if you were a fan or something, but the guy just doesn't make the cut. Tarc (talk) 20:31, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice straw man. I was responding to your rationale that there was no assertion of notability and that this could've been a speedy deletion. You didn't say anything about passing any of our notability guidelines, fictional or otherwise. Now that you've changed your argument for deletion, this easily passes WP:N and its WP:GNG for receiving significant coverage from reliable sources.--Oakshade (talk) 22:03, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - supporting such people makes a mockery of the project - there will never be a decent article about his life, he just has a job in media but he's not noteworthy for a encyclopedic bio at all, as the lack of sources show. Off2riorob (talk) 04:16, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Oakshade. Satisfies WP:N and WP:BIO. Edison (talk) 04:46, 11 January 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.