Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew Rose (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 no consensus. Sandstein 12:26, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Rose (journalist)[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Bio of a working journalist with no indication of notability per WP:JOURNALIST. He's held a few fairly senior roles at the Wall Street Journal but that itself doesn't make him notable. WP:BEFORE searches don't find anything to suggest he's more than a successful working journalist, which isn't really enough. He is (or possibly was) married to a notable person but notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Neiltonks (talk) 12:08, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:20, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:20, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. This article has no purpose whatsoever. Very little on Google, fails WP:BASIC and appears to be a self-promoted article. - Funky Snack (Talk) 12:56, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"self promoted"? nah, if a journalist on this level wrote his own page, it would be better than this stub.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:45, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The person has had a number of by-lined articles on a major newspaper (WSJ). "In Saylorsburg, Penn., in 2016, I met the exiled Turkish cleric Fethullah Gulen and wrote a leder with Doug Belkin about how charter schools became a proxy in the battle between the cleric and the president of Turkey. (Matthew Rose expertly coordinated and Steve Yoder edited.) It was part of a package (led by Meg Coker) that was a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize for international reporting last year." [1] credits him with a role in a Pulitzer finalist. [2] credits him with being the immediate supervisor of a person winning a "Feddie" award. [3] quoted in the Routledge Companion to Media and Scandal. [4] "the Journal’s Washington bureau deputy chief, Matthew Rose, will serve as editor, enterprise.". Deputy bureau chief for the WSJ is not "cub reporter" level, AFAICT. Not Walter Cronkite, but as notable as most of the reporters now having BLPs on Wikipedia. And none of the sources I give are WP:SPS. Collect (talk) 13:58, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per far from WP:GNG. The NYT cite in the article is not enough even if we consider it independent. The first three of Collect's links above are bare mentions, and the Politico one from the article is not independent (mostly). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:11, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Um --- When an editor in only a couple of minutes finds several non-trivial and non-SPS sources, attacking that editor is seldom showing more than animus at best. That one is anxious to delete this reporter who is more notable than many ones currently having articles is insufficient for denigrating the fact than another editor found a number of mentions in a few short minutes and only used four as being logically sufficient for any AfD discussion. If you wish more, I can nicely overload this discussion :). [5] featured on Slate. [6] covered in trade publications. " Bragg’s comments to Kurtz had fellow reporters on the NYT national desk “in a state of meltdown” on Wednesday, a Times staffer tells Matthew Rose. (Wall Street Journal)" and so on. How many cites are needed? Collect (talk) 14:33, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In no way, shape or form did I intend to attack you, and I can only hope that most editors don't read it that way. You presented sources, I didn't want to ignore that. Per WP:GNG, the Slate article doesn't add any notability, and the Poynter one is another passing mention. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:29, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, the Slate and Poynter stories are exactly the kind that support the notability of journalists.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:50, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see those sources doing very much for the notability of this article per WP:JOURNALIST. Support, perhaps. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:50, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 13:28, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Subject is Wall Street Journal Washington bureau deputy chief and the paper's front page chief co-editor for enterprise. (The other co-editor oversees news. See here.) The positions evidently render notability to subject journalist. -The Gnome (talk) 09:22, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MrClog (talk) 17:24, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources are not much. Fails WP:GNG. ~GMC ^{{talk to me}} 19:04, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't anyone doing back up search anymore? A cursory online glance reveals a plethora of sources: The article subject's involvement in what was called a "sweeping change" in a major U.S. newspaper such as WSJ has been prominent in trade and other media (e.g. here, here, and here); he has been involved in a well known controversy (see this, followed by this); he's frequently called on to comment on events (see here and here); his work is cited by the likes of Le Monde Diplomatique (see here); he was among the limited number of American "opinion leaders" invited at a "working dinner" by the president of Turkey (see here); and so on. -The Gnome (talk) 08:23, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In my experience journalists and editors in his position at a paper like the WSJ have participated in enough media to achieve WP:GNG. While the creator of this article hasn't done the work to establish notability in the article through citations, I would bet the sources from TV, Newspapers and TV are out there. I would suggest having the interested parties do the required research to come up with appropriate sources to establish notablity. If they can't the page should be deleted but this is likely more of a case of lazy or uneducated editing. Disclosure: I have not done any research into the topic. ScienceAdvisor (talk) 09:12, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note that users Collect and The Gnome have done exactly as you suggest, finding and linking to exellent sources that clearly demonstrate notability. Alhtough it is nice when an AfD spurs an editor to improve a page, it is not required. At AfD, our job is to establish that WP:SIGCOV exists. That has now been proven.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:55, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment E.M.Gregory Happy to help! Glad the page could be modified to become useful. ScienceAdvisor (talk) 22:19, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly significant journalist. Persuasive sources brought above by Collect and The Gnome. ~~Just leave the sourcing tag in place.~~ E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:40, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I sourced the page. Point made above by User:The Gnome, User:Collect, and User:ScienceAdvisor, that the fact that he is one of the editors who runs one of the most influential newspapers in the United States, makes him notable - full stop - is the more important argument.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:56, 14 May 2019 (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.