Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Holleran

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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:39, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Holleran[edit]

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

No particular indication of importance. Sources are all to blogs, listings, or the journalist's own articles, his own web site, and docial networks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:18, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Simply a puff piece with no credible sources. Fails WP:BIO, [[W:GNG]. scope_creep talk 14:47, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fringe, freelance journalist that no Independent Reliable Sources seem to have taken note of. All the links, and all I could find at Google News Archive, are to his own writing. --MelanieN (talk) 23:33, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 07:10, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Consider keeping. A journalist is a person who writes things instead of being written about. It is a normal thing, so it is difficult to apply WP:GNG word for word in this case. He writes in serious journals (LA Times, Wall Street Journal etc.). Just an added info - 8 articles here on Wikipedia refer to him as a source. (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&profile=default&search=%22Scott+Holleran%22&fulltext=Search) Crazyforreading (talk) 14:28, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes true, but just writing things doesn't make a person notable, otherwise every journalist and writer would be notable, and the concept of a "notable writer" would be diluted. It's like the Google search algorithm, which gives high scores to pages that have many links to them ie. if other people consider that page important so will google search. Likewise we consider notable topics that have many people "linking" (talking about) the person. GNG exists so we have material to write an article with beyond basic facts of name, age and employment. Have to say why the person is important. Just being a writer isn't notable on its own. Usually what happens is a writer builds a reputation until they break out and people start noticing and talking about them. Or, they publish a book and get 4 or 5 book reviews in reliable sources. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:51, 2 September 2013 (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.