Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bob Mackin

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. Kurykh (talk) 00:08, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Mackin[edit]

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

Was looking at this article to tag it for clean up, but looking at the sources and google results, I'm not sure this person meets WP:BASIC, as there just isn't that much out there for reliable secondary sources about why this person is notable. Submitting to AFD instead of tagging for clean-up. Fbifriday (talk) 04:37, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:54, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:54, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:54, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. Notable BC journalist as per WP:JOURNALIST multiple citing by reporters, multiple authoring articles, has won significant attention sometimes, For example: he filed 1,913 about 40% of all provincial Freedom of Information requests by media 2009-2014 seanholman ref so is called FOI Warrior that may have cost taxpayers $3.85 million tyee and often raised criticism of government.Mackin in Georgia Straight headline

I do Agree that current content of biography needs improvement. Currently sounds too much like a resume and needs more third-party reliable sources. Canuckle (talk) 20:32, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A person gets a Wikipedia article by being the subject of media coverage written by other people, not by being the author of media coverage about other subjects. The sources can't be blogs, so "seanholman ref" does nothing to assist; The Georgia Straight is a local alt-weekly and The Tyee is a webmedia venture, so while they would be valid for supplementary confirmation of facts after the article had already been Vancouver Sunned and Provinced and Globe and Mailed and CBCed over WP:GNG, they're not references that count toward the basic question of whether GNG has been passed in the first place. And as for the references present in the article, two are primary sources and one is another blog — CKNW is the only legitimate source at all, but (a) as a local radio station it doesn't bring GNG by itself for the same reason that The Georgia Straight and The Tyee can't bring GNG by themselves, and (b) it's a dead link, which means we can't even verify what it said. So no, you're not showing any of the kind of sourcing that it takes. Bearcat (talk) 19:56, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:52, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While there's enough here in theory that he would probably pass WP:JOURNALIST if the article were sourced properly, there's nothing here that entitles him to an exemption from having to be sourced over WP:GNG. If he had won a Governor General's Award or the RBC Taylor Prize or the Hilary Weston Award for his book, for example, then one proper source for that fact would make it a must-keep — but if you're going for "notable because he exists", then the article has to be supported by a lot more reliable source coverage about him than has been shown here. Bearcat (talk) 19:56, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with Bearcat. Needs to be more about him and there's not. Fails WP:GNG. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:15, 5 February 2017 (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.