Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Idato

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. While this article is very well sourced, it lacks the significant coverage that our notability guideline requires. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 02:36, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Idato[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO, non-notable JMHamo (talk) 18:34, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 02:13, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. Lacks coverage about him in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:55, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 20:43, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:GNG -- no independent RS found. GAB^Hello! 22:27, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He is the senior entertainment journalist for one of the biggest papers in the biggest city in Australia. It's very hard to find refs on journalists, as google is overwhelmed by articles that they wrote, not articles about them. But I've found him described as "arguably Australia’s foremost television critic" and a story about his relocation. Both independent reliable sources. The-Pope (talk) 13:09, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Draft instead as the article is still questionable for better immediate notability and improvements. SwisterTwister talk 05:22, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to a lack of reliable sources and notability. Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 05:06, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete almost all the coverage is about his reports not him as a subject thus fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 17:33, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per sources found by The-Pope. I recognize that this is borderline in terms of WP:SIGCOV but I'm comfortable going with borderline in light of The-Pope's comments on sourcing and the many incoming links to this article indicating potential notability and definite usefulness to Wikipedia readers. ~Kvng (talk) 18:47, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep it is borderline and it is a BLP. But sources are (just) over the bar IMO and as noted, finding significant coverage of journalists can be tricky. Hobit (talk) 00:44, 16 April 2016 (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.