Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Chisholm (journalist)

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. Kevin (talk) 03:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Chisholm (journalist)[edit]

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

Doesn't satisfy the criteria detailed at WP:CREATIVE (which includes journalists), hasn't been widely cited by peers or successors, no new concepts/techniques/major roles/critical attention or significant contributions. ƒ(Δ)² 08:34, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: nil sources, fails basic criteria. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Added some sources, significant coverage here, here and here in particular. That's good enough for WP:N as far as I'm concerned. Gr1st (talk) 22:19, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - if the article could be appropriately sourced, he'd be notable as a prolific and award-winning journalist. The sources for the relevant claims aren't there yet, though, (even after Gr1st's work above) so at this stage delete. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:08, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He doesn't have to be prolific or award-winning. He just has to be the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. I don't see where the above three references fall down on that. Gr1st (talk) 11:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG provides guidelines for a presumption of notability. The presumption is rebuttable. In assessing whether the presumption is rebutted it's appropriate to look at secondary policies, including (in this case) WP:CREATIVE. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:32, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails notability, though not by much. Orderinchaos 03:06, 1 October 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.