Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Pamatatau

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, as it has not been shown that this topic satisfies any of the notability guidelines. Skomorokh 00:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Pamatatau

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

Notability (under WP:Bio) - this person does not have reliable coverage for biographical facts in secondary sources; this is likely a self-written bio (especially evident in the "education" section). No evidence to show why this person is more notable than any other New Zealand journalist. Verifiability - I cannot find any links to verify this information. No Reliable Sources (and the page had already been tagged to reflect this since 2007, with no improvement). Sylviasays (talk) 00:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Vanity article written by a single purpose account with no other editing credits. "Richard Pamatatau is Radio New Zealand’s Pacific Islands correspondent. He has a background in IT journalism, writing for both the DominionPost and the New Zealand Herald. " - from a G-search - so what? He's a journalist, who doesn't seem very notable. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -gadfium 01:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, warmish. He's world famous in NZ, but so is this guy who has his own entry. .Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 01:56, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just because there's another non-notable New Zealand journalist/media personality who has his own article, I don't think it follows that we must keep other non-notable articles on that basis (by all means feel free to nominate Phil Gifford's article for deletion too, if you feel it's warranted :-)). Also, I actually do think there's a bit of a distinction between Richard Pamatatau and Phil Gifford (though I have heard of neither!) - Gifford has his own show, whereas Pamatatau appears to be merely one reporter of many at the station. Further, Gifford seems to have written a reasonably popular book, which would possibly make him more notable. Pamatatau's list of work seems like the sort of thing any average journalist would be expected to do in any average news-room. Thanks :-) Sylvia Says (talk) 11:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom. No indication of sufficient notability. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 01:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: So he's on the radio. But no one writes about him being on the radio. dramatic (talk) 02:51, 11 September 2009 (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.