Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nancy Wood (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) —MRD2014 ^{Talk • Edits • Help!} 01:31, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Wood (journalist)[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a television journalist, notable primarily as a single-market local news anchor. As always, every anchor for every local television station does not get an automatic free pass over our notability standards for journalists, but there's no particularly strong claim here to being more notable than the norm — and for referencing, all we have here is her own staff profile on the website of her own employer (a primary source that cannot support notability) and one article about her in the local newspaper. So while source #2 counts for something, it doesn't count for enough to clear WP:GNG all by itself. If you're going for "notable because media coverage of her exists, even though nothing in the article actually passes any subject-specific inclusion criteria", then we require multiple reliable sources and not just one. Bearcat (talk) 16:34, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:46, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:46, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:47, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:47, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for reasons laid out by Nom.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:04, 3 August 2017 (UTC) Sourcing now. Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. My sin: presentism. turns out she was a pretty bid deal in the '90s.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:43, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Noon and Daybreak (the work she's stated to have done in the 1990s) do not constitute "big deals" — they're CBC Radio One's local programs in the Montreal market, which means they aren't notable enough to hand an automatic "notable for hosting them" freebie to a journalist who isn't sourced to enough reliable source coverage about her to clear WP:GNG. For comparable examples, Matt Galloway has the sourcing to clear GNG and also hosts a network-wide show in addition to Metro Morning, and Gill Deacon already had an article for being a national television personality years before she joined Here and Now — but conversely, we deleted Deacon's predecessor Laura Di Battista for having neither a strong "more than just one media market" notability claim nor enough reliable source coverage to make her notable just for her presence in one media market, and I could neither properly source nor credibly defend Wikipedia articles about Joan Melanson, David Schatzky, Joe Coté or Matt Maychak, also prior hosts of the same programs. Bearcat (talk) 18:13, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, probably WP:TOOSOON. Her career is building, but I don't think she meets the Wikipedia:GNG bar yet. PK T(alk) 19:29, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is an individual with a 30-year career and per [1], a national reporter having worked throughout Canada, a groundbreaker for women in journalism and clearly subject to enough significant coverage to meet GNG. It appears that her current spot represents something of a setback following a more prominent position. As always, some of these articles need work, but that's separate from notability. Montanabw^(talk) 05:25, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not enough in an AFD discussion to just say that a person has received enough coverage to meet GNG — you have to show the evidence that she's received enough reliable source coverage to meet GNG. Bearcat (talk) 15:28, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep changing my iVote after reading User:Montanabw's comment and taking a closer look. Plus a news archive search. There are sources on her career - I added a handful of them, more exist. When she was hired and very quickly fired as host of a popular, English-language morning show in Montreal, she became something of a Cause célèbre - a battle of the op-eds, columnists, letter to the editor and blogs ensued. quite a few are detailed enough to make a better article possible should someone choose to write it. That, together with her record as a journalist, carries her past WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:23, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be more convinced of notability on that basis if there were any evidence that the battle of the op-eds had expanded beyond Montreal's local newspapers, like into The Globe and Mail or the National Post. But a purely local media firestorm just makes her a WP:BLP1E, not a topic of enduring or extralocal interest. Bearcat (talk) 18:34, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Montreal's big city, and it's not just that 2010 firestorm; there have been several in-depth analysis and profiles of Wood and her career, the first back in 1996, and considerable WP:SIGCOV since. I'll back off and let other editors take a look.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:37, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Big city" counts for nothing more than "smaller city" in terms of being able to local-coverage its purely local media personalities into notability. A radio or television personality needs to have a nationalized notability claim backed by nationalized coverage, or they're nowhere at all. Bearcat (talk) 21:10, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HEY, forgot to mention that I added a few details and some sources. Also, she has done print and television, but the heart of her career was in radio, the BBC (you know the CBC, it's the BBC / ABC / NPR of the frozen north) The early morning show she anchored is how the Anglophone chattering classes in Montreal start their day.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:42, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the CBC is the BBC/PBS/NPR of the frozen north — and notability for being a CBC personality attaches to its national network personalities, not to every person seen or heard on one of its local stations. That is, Peter Mansbridge and Ian Hanomansing and Rosemary Barton and Annamaria Tremonti and Carol Off yes, but Garth Materie and Markus Schwabe and Hallie Cotnam and Mike Wise and Makda Ghebrelassie no. So kindly spare me the sarcastic attacks on my awareness of the very radio network I'm listening to right this very minute. A person gets a Wikipedia article for being nationally known, not for being familiar to "the chattering classes of Montreal". Bearcat (talk) 21:06, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

'zat true? (and, I truly wasn't being sarcastic, Americans do not know what the CBC is.) But, is it true that major city hosts of CBC radio programs are not bluelinked? 'cause south of the border lots of 'em are: Tom Ashbrook, Christopher Lydon, Brian Lehrer, Leonard Lopate, lots of talk-and-news show hosts on statewide and major city NPR affiliates are bluelinked. Category:NPR personalities It never occurred to me that I was proposing anything novel.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:39, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's true, most CBC personalities below the level of the national networks don't have articles (and virtually all of the ones that do, it's because they also have nationalized notability claims, such as Matt Galloway also hosting Podcast Playlist and Stan Carew having been the original host of Prime Time and Craig Norris's preexisting notability as a musician and national host on CBC Radio 3.) And, for that matter, many of the local personalities for individual NPR stations who have articles don't actually qualify for them either; just like the usual problem that commonly infects articles about journalists and broadcasters, far too many of them are just thinly veiled rewrites of their own staff profiles on the websites of their own stations, with little to no actual evidence of reliable source coverage shown at all. But it's an established consensus that to get an automatic presumption of notability just for existing, a radio personality has to have national prominence, such as being heard across an entire national network — local personalities can sometimes still qualify for articles if they can be sourced as significantly more notable than most of the thousands upon thousands of other people who've been local radio personalities, but they get no automatic presumption of notability just for existing, and getting them over the bar takes quite a lot more than just the run of the mill coverage that any local radio personality can always expect to get in the local newspaper. Even I've heard of Leonard Lopate, for example — but he's not notable just because New Yorkers know who he is, he's notable because the rest of North America outside of New York knows who he is too, and even his article is overly dependent on primary sources in its current form. Bearcat (talk) 23:01, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Based on her multi-decade long career, the subject of this article is passes notability requirements. Netherzone (talk) 22:29, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Longevity of career is not a notability guarantee in and of itself, if none of that longevity ever nationalized. Hosting local radio programs in a single market is not a notability guarantee. Local coverage of the type that any local radio personality anywhere could reasonably and routinely expect to receive is not a notability guarantee. So what notability criterion are you so sure that she passes, exactly? Bearcat (talk) 03:13, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:03, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - clearly passes WP:Notability (people) ^{Atsme📞📧} 03:27, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but the article needs some fleshing out Maugster (talk) 12:03, 10 August 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.