Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Bivins

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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:26, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Bivins[edit]

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

PROD-ed because I do not see the article's subject meeting WP:JOURNALIST. Page author contested PROD by stating Bivins met WP:GNG for significant coverage in reliable sources but to me the coverage in most sources seems trivial (merely mentioning he was there and filming video for Periscope streaming). RA0808 ^talk _contribs 17:54, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 17:55, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 17:55, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 17:55, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as Bivins' has been covered in the Washington Post, which is one of the nation's biggest newspapers but perhaps Bivins' entry should be reorganized to mention that he is notable for his protest coverage, and has been sought out for his opinions on protests, as seen in this video where he is interviewed by the news about his footage that showed a blogger pulling a gun on black lives matter protesters.

Did you read the The Inlander (newspaper) article about Bivins? Inlander does 50,000+ copies, and they went into detail about his work, inspirations, and other things. To me, trivial is a box score, or a one word mention of a person. This is not the case with him. Here is another article about Bivins. I'm going to update the article. Mercury does 45,000 copies by the way. Another news channel had Bivins call into their live show to be interviewed about another experience reporting on protests at Portland's city hall. Pittsburghangelsforever (talk) 21:37, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia requires significant coverage. I'm not at all sure two articles in local newspapers meet that requirement. Kleuske (talk) 22:09, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Washington Post is not a local paper. Neither is the Inlander. Those are a long way from Oregon. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/11/10/not-my-president-thousand-protest-trump-in-rallies-across-the-u-s/

http://www.inlander.com/spokane/the-live-wire/Content?oid=2950780%7CPittsburghangelsforever]] (talk) 22:13, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He was mentioned in passing by the Wash. Post. That's not significant coverage. Kleuske (talk) 22:33, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He was mentioned 3 times and was quoted. Not exactly in passing. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/11/10/not-my-president-thousand-protest-trump-in-rallies-across-the-u-s/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pittsburghangelsforever (talk • contribs) 23:20, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Pittsburghangelsforever, the article's creator, has blatantly WP:CANVASed here. I have no opinion on this AfD. John from Idegon (talk) 23:06, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That was an accident and was swiftly corrected. I appreciate your input. Pittsburghangelsforever (talk) 23:17, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Accident" is probably not the correct term, but thank you for your prompt response. John from Idegon (talk) 01:08, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article says: [his] reporting about civil unrest in the United States has itself been the object of news coverage.^{[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]} Somebody wanting the article to remain might summarize the content of this coverage. (Currently, only three among these references are reused later in the article.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:33, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And another comment. I'm concerned about the PRODding of this article. (And no, I don't mean the part saying "This article may have been previously nominated for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Bivins exists", which of course wouldn't have appeared back then.) The "concern" cited was "No indication of meeting WP:JOURNALIST." This sounds like good grounds for this AfD. But the template was attached to a short article that was soberly written and came with nine references to solid-sounding sources. Whatever your estimate of the notability of the biographee (and I haven't yet made up my own mind), even back in its PRODded state this looked like a conscientious attempt to create a decent article on somebody about whom usable sources existed. Hardly PROD material. -- Hoary (talk) 02:06, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Like Hoary, I have not made a determination, yet, about the notability of this subject. I, too, liked the writing style, a sober encyclopedic tone, well-cited from a few reasonable sources. The case for a journalist’s bio is pretty thin, though, maybe too soon, with the Washington Post article giving him 4 sentences, and the Inlander describing his work filming and live streaming from different demonstrations. Strictly speaking, this coverage is not so much about the person as it is about his work with the relatively new phenomenon in journalism of live streaming, and its use by traditional news outlets. With connections to social media and infotainment, possibly the subject might qualify as having “made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment” under WP:ENT? I am not aware of criteria specifically for internet celebrities, but maybe that is what is needed. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 05:08, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: What Hoary said about Bivins possibly being notable for something other than being a journalist gets at what I was talking about when I say Bivins should be considered notable under the WP:GNG. How many times does someone have to be appear on TV or in print to be considered generally notable? Pittsburghangelsforever (talk) 01:15, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite understand what you're referring to, Pittsburghangelsforever. As for your insistence that yes this man is notable, or your questions about what notability means, I suspect that this will do nothing to help the chances of this article's survival. If you do want it to survive, I suggest that you reread my comment above timestamped 00:33, 9 March 2017, and act on it. For even now, only three among a stack of eight references are reused. Is the "news coverage" merely trivial? (I don't know, because I haven't looked.) If it is, then cut the links as redundant. If no, it's not trivial, then use the links productively. -- Hoary (talk) 02:02, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hoary I had you confused with the other person. Thanks, I'll act on it. Pittsburghangelsforever (talk) 02:48, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 00:20, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 06:21, 24 March 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.