Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Chura

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. Sandstein 18:15, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Chura[edit]

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

Minimally sourced WP:BLP of a person notable as a single-market local television news anchor and as a not yet elected candidate in a future election. These are not claims of notability that give a person an automatic inclusion freebie on Wikipedia just because they exist — but the sourcing here is leaning entirely on WP:PRIMARYSOURCES like a tweet and his surprisingly not-yet-dead profile on the website of the television station he formerly worked for. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if he (a) wins his seat, or (b) manages to accrue greater notability, for more than just existing, as a journalist. Bearcat (talk) 21:31, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: List of Global Television Network personalities gives some indication of extent of existing coverage of similar subjects, which suggests that he may pass WP:JOURNALIST#1. The linked sources above, provided by the proposer seem to back this up. However, this is not my area of expertise. If there are clearer guidelines on TV Journo notability, then they probably need to be referred to here. The proposer highlights a few shortcomings within the article, but these can easily be addressed by more work on the article rather than deletion. Graemp (talk) 20:51, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The standard for inclusion of television journalists is really quite simple: they are the subject of substantial coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject or his own employer. There doesn't need to be any special policy beyond that fact — but no such coverage has been shown here. Bearcat (talk) 22:54, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A click on the Find sources link above for "Peter Chura" leads the reader to "substantial coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject or his own employer." The coverage of the subject has in fact increased significantly over the past month. This article has been in existence since 2006 and has had contributions from a number of editors. There might have been a case at some point over those past 10 years to move to have the article deleted, due to lack of substantial coverage. I think that point has now clearly passed. Graemp (talk) 10:19, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's notability and sourcing standards are much stricter now than they were in 2006 — a lot of things were created in 2006 that have since had to be deleted for failing to fulfill the standards that apply today. Bearcat (talk) 20:00, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:44, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:44, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:52, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per a number of articles in reliable sources entirely about the subject:
- "Former TV anchor Peter Chura to run for Manitoba Liberals". CBC News. 27 October 2015.
- Larkins, David (27 October 2015). "Peter Chura running for Liberals in Seine River". Winnipeg Sun.
- Keele, Jeff (27 October 2015). "Ex-anchor Peter Chura running for Manitoba Liberals". CTV News.
- "Former news anchor Peter Chura running for Liberals in Seine River". Winnipeg Free Press. 27 October 2015.
- Aumell, Christian (27 October 2015). "Peter Chura Running For Liberals In Seine River". CJOB.
The fact that he got so much coverage for his decision to run suggests he is notable. Also, he has been an important public figure in his large city for ~10 years as a news anchor. Antrocent (♫♬) 20:54, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:39, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I don't think that he is sufficiently notable on the basis of his work as a journalist. Criterion 1 of WP:JOURNALIST, as cited by Graemp, is: "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors." He certainly doesn't meet the latter part of that and I would struggle to call him an "important figure" in his capacity as a regional news anchor (of a newscast which I suspect has a much smaller audience than the regional newscasts of CBC or CTV). With respect to the List of Global Television Network personalities that Graemp also mentioned, the only two non-national hosts/anchors listed other than Chura are the anchors of Global BC (in Vancouver) and Global Montreal, both in markets much bigger than Winnipeg.

Regarding his recent entry into politics, provincial candidates are not normally presumed to be notable. The only coverage appears to be the mere announcement of his candidacy and all of the sources cited (in the article and this AfD) are from the same day. While the announcement got a little more coverage than the average provincial candidacy on account of him presumably being a known name in Winnipeg, it is still just coverage of the one announcement. If that's essentially all the coverage, that's coming close to WP:ONEEVENT and thus might be more appropriately covered by an article similar to Liberal Party of Canada candidates, 2015 Canadian federal election.

Of course, as Bearcat noted, this may be an appropriate subject for an article in the future if the subject were to become notable (by, e.g, winning the election, becoming a uniquely notable candidate for some reason, moving up in his field as a journalist, receiving a significant award or distinction for his journalism, etc.). Graham (talk) 07:33, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Assessing if someone is "an important figure" or not can be tricky and Graham tackles this difficult area; Graham talks about audience size, speculating that Global TV audiences may be "much smaller" than CBC or CTV, without actually providing any stats. Perhaps audience size might be relevant if we were comparing a national TV company with a small local or alternative media outlet, but we are not. Graham also talks about differences in markets between Winnipeg and Montreal/Vancouver. I'm not sure how relevant that distinction is or should be. I think what is more relevant is the actual status; Winnipeg, like Montreal and Vancouver, is a provincial capital and like the other two, seeks to serve a province wide audience. This Afd discussion has also overlooked another consideration and that is Chura has not just had a Manitoba profile; the article reveals he has also had a profile in Edmonton, Alberta, Timmins, Ontario and Ottawa, Ontario and finally has worked for CBC on a national daily programme from Toronto. So that is three provinces and a nationwide show. Graham's initial view about "sufficiently notable on the basis of his work as a journalist." is no longer a relevant consideration by itself due to his further notability beyond journalism. I think it would be fairer to say that Chura's candidacy announcement got substantially more coverage than the average candidacy, provincial, federal or otherwise. Graemp (talk) 16:14, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The only way a candidacy for office can ever contribute to a person's notability is if it (inter-)nationalizes into something on the order of the media firestorm that ate Christine O'Donnell in 2010. Unless and until that happens, coverage of the candidacy itself is WP:ROUTINE, because it isn't substantively different from what all candidates for office always get in the runup to all elections. So no, the candidacy coverage doesn't make him more notable on that basis than any other unelected candidate would be — until such time as he wins the election and thereby holds a notable office, the only way to make him notable enough to have a Wikipedia article now is to source the article to coverage of him in the context of being a journalist (and no, mentions of his past career as a journalist in articles which are about the candidacy don't satisfy that.) Bearcat (talk) 19:54, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I'm sorry, but I don't think it's right for you to say that "Graham's initial view about 'sufficiently notable on the basis of his work as a journalist.' is no longer a relevant consideration by itself due to his further notability beyond journalism." when I was clearly addressing the subject's notability as a journalist and as a politician in separate paragraphs.

"Perhaps audience size might be relevant if we were comparing a national TV company with a small local or alternative media outlet, but we are not. Graham also talks about differences in markets between Winnipeg and Montreal/Vancouver. I'm not sure how relevant that distinction is or should be. I think what is more relevant is the actual status; Winnipeg, like Montreal and Vancouver, is a provincial capital and like the other two, seeks to serve a province wide audience." Where is it that you are suggesting the line is there? If a former news anchor on CKND-DT is notable, then could/should we say the same of an anchor on CBCT-DT in Charlottetown, PEI (another provincial capital), assuming the anchor were not otherwise notable? Or what about CKX-TV in Brandon, Manitoba?

In terms of audience numbers, these are a few years out of date, but it gives us an idea: http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/arts-and-life/entertainment/TV/ctv-still-dominates-local-tv-news-ratings-113339259.html. That being said, ratings definitely aren't the crux of the issue here.

Regarding your comparison to Global BC and Global Montreal, Global Winnipeg serves 91% of Manitoba's population of 1.2 million. Global BC, for example, serves 97% of BC's population of 4.4 million. I would say it's a significant difference when Global Winnipeg has a quarter of the potential reach of Global BC. And if you look at the numbers for Global Montreal, they're similar.

But really, in short – and I think this is key here – the question that has to be asked with respect to Chura's work as a journalist is "has [he] has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"? I think the answer clear.

Looking separately at his political work, the reality is that at this point, it's almost non-existent. While it seems most of the major media outlets in Southern Manitoba ran a short piece on the announcement of his candidacy, that one day of non-extensive coverage is the extent of his political career thus far. I don't know in what other field we would consider one day of non-extensive coverage of a WP:SINGLEEVENT in the regional media as sufficient to deem the individual involved in the event to be notable.

I imagine that one could attempt to make the argument that while he is not sufficiently notable solely as a journalist or as a politician, the combination of his notability in both of those fields might be enough. I don't buy that, however, as there's effectively no significant coverage of his journalism in reliable sources and his notability in politics doesn't extend beyond one day of non-extensive news coverage in the regional press.

Finally, I think it is worth restating that this someone who, if elected, will be almost unquestionably notable. If he receives extensive (preferably national) coverage for his campaign, he will likely be notable as well. But as things stand right now, he is a regional news anchor about whom there is no significant coverage and a provincial third party candidate who independent sources haven't covered except to say that he is running. Graham (talk) 02:29, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bearcat states "the only way to make him notable enough to have a Wikipedia article now is to source the article to coverage of him in the context of being a journalist" adding "(and no, mentions of his past career as a journalist in articles which are about the candidacy don't satisfy that.)". Earlier Bearcat stated that Wikipedia:RS requires sourcing that are independent of the subject or his own employer. I don't think that the bracketed qualification that Bearcat requests should override Wikipedia:RS. Nevertheless I appreciate that Bearcat, the proposer of deletion is now recognising sufficient notability for the article to remain, so I would be happy to collaborate with Bearcat to improve it. Given that Bearcat has a history of editing this article in 2006, 2008, 2009 and 2010, I am happy to let Bearcat take first crack. Graemp (talk) 21:26, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nice try, but nothing I said anywhere in this discussion suggests that I think there is "sufficient notability for the article to remain". For the article to remain, reliable sources would have to be covering him in the context of his work as a journalist, and not in the context of his candidacy for an office that he hasn't been elected to yet. But the sourcing that's been shown here has not satisfied that condition at all — and I've said nothing that contradicts any part of that statement anywhere in this discussion. And Wikipedia's inclusion and minimum sourcing standards have changed considerably since 2006 — a lot of things that were acceptable on here a decade ago are nowhere near acceptable under the standards that an article has to meet now. So the fact that I might have edited the article in the past does not prove that I'm being inconsistent — it just proves that Wikipedia's rules about what's enough notability/sourcing and what isn't have changed. Bearcat (talk) 22:10, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are two separate issues here; Assessing an individuals notability and assessing the way the article presents this through sourcing. In assessing notability we rely upon WP:JOURNALIST which states "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors." In assessing how this is presented we need to take note of Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Bearcat proposed deletion essentially because identifying reliable sources had not occurred. I think it is fairly clear that the information in the article can be sourced in accordance with Wikipedia:RS. (The sources at the start of this AfD discussion are helpful in this respect) On the subject of notability, I think it is worth stressing that the criteria for journalists has essentially not changed since before 2008. The fact that Bearcat has edited the article three times since then should not lead anyone to conclude that Bearcat is being inconsistent since Bearcat has essentially not been questioning the notability of the subject. In my view, the way forward is to provide reliable sourcing for the article, not to deleted it. Graemp (talk) 10:47, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The sourcing that has been offered so far, right across the board without a single exception, is WP:ROUTINE coverage of an as yet unelected candidacy for political office — which is no different from what all candidates for office always get in all elections, and thus does not contribute toward getting a candidate over WP:GNG for being a candidate. It is not coverage of him in the context of his journalism, and thus does not demonstrate that he is "is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors" as a journalist.

And our inclusion criteria have changed considerably since 2006; back then, people often created articles on journalists whose only source was their staff profile on the website of the television station that they worked for (which was exactly the case here as well, until you started trying to stack it with WP:ROUTINE coverage of his political candidacy instead of finding actual coverage of his journalism.) There was once a time when verification of existence was considered sufficient, and an article did not have to be particularly well-sourced as long as the staff profile verified the content. But what constitutes reliable and independent sourcing for any article has tightened up considerably in the intervening decade — a staff profile is now deprecated as a primary source which cannot confer notability in and of itself.

And for the record, I've even supported the deletion of articles where I was actually the original creator under the old 2006-vintage rules (see, frex, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lauren Burrows and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lily Lanken), because the available volume of WP:RS coverage hadn't kept up with that evolution — so the fact that I may have edited an article for purely maintenance issues once or twice before does not prove that I'm being hypocritical or inconsistent by looking at it today, in mind of the notability and sourcing standards that govern Wikipedia's content today, and coming to the conclusion that it's just not there. Bearcat (talk) 14:49, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:02, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:33, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The two journalistic awards he received have now been sourced. Sourcing of his journalistic career now covers a span of eight years. Graemp (talk) 12:37, 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.