Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frank Coletta (Australian 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. (all). Mango juice^talk 16:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Coletta (Australian Journalist)[edit]

Non-notable substitute Australian news reporter - article is unreferenced. Also nominated are similar articles of other substitute news readers

Delete this and similar articles. The notability criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (people) for the category that includes journalists is:
- ... regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors.
- ...known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
- ...who have created a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
- ...who's work either (a) has been displayed in a significant exhibition or as a monument (b) has won significant critical attention, or (c) is represented within the permanent collection of a significant gallery or museum of more than local significance.

While this is only a guideline - none of these journalists - nor many others that have wikipedia articles and would fall into the same category would meet any of these guidelines. There are no references for these articles and there is no assertion that they have made contributions to their profession in any sense as per the guidelines above. "A long history in the media" does not equal notable.--Golden Wattle ^talk 23:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Golden Wattle ^talk 22:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep All three journalists are reasonably notable, having taken hosting duties for a significant continous period on a prime time broadcast. Referencing these should be easy to bring them into line with BLP and make them a reasonable article. Thewinchester ^(talk) 23:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: There are no references for any of them and there is no assertion of notability - being a substitute news reader is not a notable profession.--Golden Wattle ^talk 23:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment:If they are notable, then yes, referencing should be easy. Despite this, none have been forthcoming and the main contributor to these articles blanks their talk page (including warning messages) rather than archiving which makes following discussions with them rather difficult.Ga rr ie 01:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All have a relatively long history in the media, with several roles at different networks. And references can be found. Recurring dreams 23:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If references can be found, please do but for now - and for quite some time now - the only references which have been provided have been trivial coverage, or primary sources. Primary sources cannot be used to assert notability.Ga rr ie 01:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no criteria at WP:N which states a history in broadcasting or entertainment. No non-trivial secondary sources for this article have been supplied or have been found. WP:BIO has not been met because this person is a relieving presenter, that is not a significant role in television. Garrie 01:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The correct criteria in this case is actually WP:BIO Thewinchester ^(talk) 07:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - And in my opinion, these presenters pass neither WP:N nor WP:BIO. Some people pass one or the other. These people pass neither.Ga rr ie 08:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Reading from a teleprompter in front of a camera does not make you notable, and no other evidence has been presented of notability.--Grahamec 03:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ok, for those commenting who've not used Google to check what they're on about - here it is. Firstly, Coletta stood in the 2006 Hornsby City Council By-election [1] on a number of local issues, is a supporter of Cystic Fibrosis NSW on account of having a child suffering CF. He is also a member of the board of Australian Health Management since 2001. In his over 20yrs experience in the media industry across print, radio and television, with organisations including Sky News Australia, the Australian Radio Network and Fairfax newspapers. He’s also worked extensively as a freelance journalist with SBS radio, the National Soccer League and Australian Associated Press. He is also a fellow of the Australian Institute of Company Directors and is a NSW Justice of the Peace (Listed under Francesco Anthony Coletta). He also caused a minor uproar when during the Cronulla Riots, he read out in full, the text message that is supposedly doing the rounds at the moment, imploring the ‘lions of Lebanon’ to meet at a particular place, at a particular time, with the intent of committing violent crime. [2]. I think that covers it. Thewinchester ^(talk) 07:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment in response - the articles cite no sources, whether or not sources can be googled is not the point. Notability is not adequately asserted and therefore it is not a matter of requesting sources to support claims of notability; not one of the people are notable. The facts you give about Coletta immediately above may be sourced but not one of them makes him notable. History in the media is not a claim to notability - is he "regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by [his] peers" - no! We do not have articles on justices of the peace - they are not notable, nor are people who support charities - many of us do. Company directors are not intrinsicaly notable, nor are people who stand for local councils - successfully elected mayors perhaps but just standing ... The Cronulla Riots incident might have pushed it over the edge but all he did was read somebody else's words - he is not mentioned in the article on the riots so I don't think that pushes him over the notability threshhold. In fact perhaps one test for notability is where the article links - at present the only link within article space is to Ten News; Jacinta Hocling and Richard Davies only link to a list of television presenters. I also suggest, if you have some additions to make on a person, you imnprove the article, not merely place them in the debate - an improved article provides different considerations. I personally don't think the additions you could make from the above would push it over the line, but perhaps it might look different if edited ....--Golden Wattle ^talk 11:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article has no secondary sources so therefore not notable.Assize 07:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless reliable sources are cited indicating notability. I can't find sources for Coletta, Jacinta Hocking is best known for wearing a low cut blouse [3] and I cannot find anything for Davies. Capitalistroadster 03:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only notable journalists actually merit an article - I'm not seeing evidence of notability here (quite independent of the WP:RS argument) Orderinchaos 03:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all three unless notability using secondary sources can be established. Of the 3, I think Coletta comes the closest, and I still think his notability falls well below the line of notability. I did a check on the Fairfax News Store and found very little --Takver 05:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Coletta - Secondary reference from Fairfax media: WOOPS! We overpaid ourselves $262,000 Illawarra Mercury 24/03/2007 "DIRECTORS of Wollongong-based Australian Health Management have overpaid themselves $262,000 and must ask members to let them keep it......"

Jacinta Hocking - Secondary reference from Fairfax media: 2 one star references from the Sun Herald, likely to be incidental.

Search on 'Richard Davies AND Ten' found 1 one star reference, likely to be incidental.

Keep - I don't know much about Australia, but on Park Avenue anybody's innocent until proven guilty in the court of law, until now at least. Why you don't believe this Aussie? They even ain't got proper telephone lines due to activity of flying foxes, forget broadband and high speed internet. All right, imagine that Frankie is one of us from Hoboken, NJ, who sang "I did it my way". And he is not guilty of anything except of being himself. So what's the charge for AfD? greg park avenue 21:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What is any of that meant to mean?Garrie 23:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Apparently being helpful!?! or so I was informed when I asked the same question. I assume the user thinks all and sundry should have wikipedia articles and one is notable until proven not to be rahter than the other way around. --Golden Wattle ^talk 02:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It was meant to mean that Frank Coletta maybe not that well documented as Frank Sinatra, but it comes with a territory - one village distant from another of about 500 miles and connected by railroad and telegraph, schooling by radio, medvac only by a plane, no broadband, TV and internet only by satelite - what do you expect - an avalanche of cyber space data on Australia? Someone who's AfDing an article supposed to proof that an article is not notable, not the other way around. I only once succeeded with that, proofing a tendency of an article about a list of hip hop albums which omitted Shakira. greg park avenue 14:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - We are talking about Australia and not the Democratic Republic of Congo here? I live in a city of 1.6 million with an asphalt street in front of my house, two primary schools in my suburb, two hospitals within 8 miles of me, DSL broadband and a choice of 5 TV stations (more if I had Foxtel...) :D Orderinchaos 15:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete judging from search engine results and an overview of the article details I agree with the nom Feydakin 11:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, provided a source of some sort can be found to verify that he's co-anchored the 5pm news in Sydney on a regular basis. That would be notable enough for me. Lankiveil 03:54, 12 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Frank Coletta (Australian Journalist) and Frank Coletta (linkies added to both); Redirect Jacinta Hocking to Seven News. Within Category:Broadcast news analysts can be found sufficient practical evidence that news anchors are considered notable for being on millions of TVs every week. However for Jacinta Hocking there is little reliable information available, so a redirect is sufficient until more info comes to hand. John Vandenberg 06:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Of the three references now on the article, only the second one - Channel Ten likes to make the news, not report it by the Chaser - I reckon is non-trivial. The others show he is a company director and plays amateur sport, which provides background but does not contribute substantially to his notability. Maybe another non-trivial secondary reference and I might be persuaded. --Takver 08:11, 12 May 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.