Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian Jantzen

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 of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 15:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Jantzen[edit]

Seems to be an nn sports reporter. Article is orphaned and unverified. A Google search for "Christian Jantzen" "SBS television" brings up only 1 hit. In addition, article reads suspiciously like a copyvio. Abstain for now, will take into account further arguments first. Zunaid 08:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC) Delete per Capitalistroadster and Blnguyen, this guy doesn't seem notable enough. Zunaid 07:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It seems like a copyvio but it's not. This user ben.carbonaro is a young journalist whose style happens to resemble that of a marketing biography. Google searches for notable Australian figures don't prove anything. I can tell you he is much more notable than Max Walker (Canadian), but due to the locality of Walker, he gets more google hits.
You ever thought of adding meaningful content to wikipedia instead of deleting everything you see? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rogerthat (talk • contribs) R o gerthat ^Talk 09:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I think about it, heck sometimes I even do it. I get more joy out of pruning the 'pedia though. Zunaid 07:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Reporter for national network but for not notable enough yet for mine. 10 Google hits for "Christian Jantzen" SBS see [1]. The page that this page could well be a copyvio is his bio at SBS [2]. I was considering speedy deletion as a copyvio before seeing Rogerthat's explanation. Capitalistroadster 09:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I've said, Google hits are very unindicative of a person's notablity when based in Australia. For example, search for "Mark Doran journalist", and of the 300 hits there you will find very little related to the Mark Doran who is a very big sportscaster in Australia. The fact that Mark Doran is a common name boosts his hits, it's unfortunate than Jantzen has a unique name ;) :p R o gerthat ^Talk 10:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm Australian and I'm unconvinced by that argument. There aren't that many more Canadians that Australians. I follow sports fairly closely in Australia and I've never heard of Mark Doran. I hadn't heard of Jantzen either. Capitalistroadster 11:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not hearing of Jantzen, I'll give you some leeway, although most sports fans should certinaly know him. But not hearing of Doran makes me question your interest in sports because he is a big name in journalism, radio and TV. That was just an example the Max Walker one, but there are many American journalists you could search for that are as notable or less notable than Jantzen that would get a much higher number of Google hits for the simple fact they are based in America where there is information on everyone. Australia doesn't have a huge presence on the Net compared to America. Search for "AFL DVD's" and the game's huge popularity does not give the expected amount of hits. R o gerthat ^Talk 10:34, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 09:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)"[reply]
Personally, I think the profile of Christian should stay there as he does virtually everything from down here in Melbourne and he does a good job at it as well. His general knowledge of sport is great and he isn't afraid to have a go at reporting on lesser known sports, for example he did a gret job covering the World Gymnastics Championships including an exclusive interview with Western Australia gymnast Olivia Vivian and her parents. --Ben.carbonaro 10:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep. On-camera reporter for a national/continental television network. Meets consensus notability standards applied in similar cases. Article badly needs cleanup, and would be seen as a copyvio if Wikipedia's standards weren't ridiculously lenient. Monicasdude 14:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep his bio is here [3] he seems notable enough. Elfguy 14:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if it gets a top-to-bottom rewrite to make it less of a hagiography. --Aaron 15:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you consider changing your vote to "delete unless rewritten"? A lot of article on AfD survive based on "keep and rewrite" votes without the rewrite subsequently happening. Zunaid 07:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - just about seems notable enough if he's an on-screen reporter. —Whouk (talk) 16:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment needs a rewrite so it doesn't read like bad marketing spiel written by Jantzen's agent...--Isotope23 18:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This is very hagiographic. 2) This fellow actually appears on the screen - as well as reading the segment reports, he also does a weekly segment during the AFL season when he talks vis-a-vis to Jarrod Molloy about the weekend's fixtures, and he does the same thing during the summer for tennis with Sandon Stolle. Personally, I don't think journos should have separate articles unless they have been around for at least a decade, and are respected pundits, rather than just people who report occurrences.Blnguyen 23:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unverifiable. Stifle 13:32, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - go to WP:AWNB and ask any of the Aussies to watch Toyota World Sports and they will vouch for his existence and work on SBS.Blnguyen 22:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - "I am too stupid to use Google" is not a reason to delete, Stifle. Ambi 07:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's quite harsh Ambi. Please don't call others stupid. Blnguyen 07:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - What Blnguyen said. That comment is not productive. Stifle 09:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - All I'm asking is for one or two websites that prove he exists and meets WP:BIO. It's not my responsibility to go digging up reasons to keep articles. Stifle 09:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well if you can't do a Google search that takes 10 seconds and add the pages to the references on this page (like I did) then you shouldn't be deleting stuff either. Wiki doesn't need people like you. R o gerthat ^Talk 04:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Wikipedia doesn't need comments like that either. Obviously AfD can be heated, but it's not a count of votes. If someone says to delete the aricle doesn't appear to be verified, you are entitled to counter that with sources (which should be added to the article). Telling editors that they don't belong on Wikipedia over an AfD vote doesn't help anyone. —Whouk (talk) 12:21, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
After all all that, it is now verifiable, and I am happy to change to keep. Stifle 16:42, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Ambi 07:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to the user who added the links to reporter profiles and other information to prove he is a real report and works for SBS. 203.51.144.245 12:44, 11 February 2006 (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.