Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Kennedy (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 Keep (non-admin closure). brew crewer (yada, yada) 00:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Kennedy (journalist)[edit]

This is a classic WP:BLP1E. No mention of any notability outside of breaking the news of the German surrender. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 00:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC) brew crewer (yada, yada) 00:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. In short, you obviously are right in WP:BLP1E. However, integrating this info into the article on German surrender may be difficult, and theis information is still worth keeping (I found it quite interesting, it definitely is also an interesting example for media historical studies). I think in this case keeping it as it is may have more sense. Pundit|utter 00:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I know, I felt bad nominating this for deletion. I searched for somewhere to merge the info, but there really isn't anything. End of World War II in Europe is an obvious candidate, but as the article is written in timeline-like manner, it's hard to merge the info into that article. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 00:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or you could just leave it and let people research, write and improve it or even try to do that yourself. He got sacked for breaking the news of the German surrender, it's quite a fascinating little tale. How about forgetting the alphabet soup for a minute and using a bit of common sense? Nick mallory (talk) 07:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I started the article, so obviously I think it should be kept. I believe there's quite a bit more to this guy. Note these blog items: http://journalismprofessor.blogspot.com/search?q=Edward+Kennedy I don't have access to The New York Times' 1963 obituary, but I bet it has more on the man that could be added. Pha telegrapher (talk) 01:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. I've got the obit [1] and it does add some things. He was managing editor of the Santa Barbara News-Press, not enough alone for notability, but it helps in this article. Joshdboz (talk) 13:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is an excellent example of why "One Event notability" is only a guideline. There's no doubt that there is plenty of verifiable information on this very significant event [2], [3], [4], etc. The question is whether this article should be on Kennedy or the event that he caused (ie the early release of the German surrender). The latter option would be quite awkward in finding a title and would essentially be this stub minus other biographical information - that being taken into account, I have no problem with this event being primarily covered in this biography. Joshdboz (talk) 01:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Of course, he will be mainly remembered for the German surrender scoop, and the fallout from the scoop which was still news in 1946, but he was a noted journalist in his own right, for example, he was the AP bureau chief in Paris and Cairo. There is room for expansion beyond the one event. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 02:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't know that he was bureau chief in Cairo. That would be a good addition to the article. I'd like to know about his career before the scoop for which he's best known. Pha telegrapher (talk) 19:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think this is a stub that deserves a chance to grow. It was nominated less then an hour after creation. What's there is a good start. If after some time passes, no one can expand it, then let's revisit it.--Cube lurker (talk) 03:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep And nominating this an hour after it was created seems bad form to me. Nick mallory (talk) 07:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep and give the writer some time to work on it, eh? An accomplished journalist, scoop of the century, multiple sources provided with more to come, fascinating historical moment. Clearly notable, verifiable, neutral, etc. What greater good was being served by nominating this when it was obviously a work in progress? In fact, I strongly encourage User:Pha telegrapher to submit this subject to Did You Know? I'd be happy to help him with that process. --JayHenry (talk) 07:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Adequate notability and sources. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:22, 21 December 2007 (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.