Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Rates

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. The article's subject is found to lack notability. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:42, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Rates[edit]

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

Seems to be a non-notable news personality. No 3rd party sources used in article. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:37, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are third party sources frequently used in this article. There are 13 all together. The reporter has covered major cases like the casey anothony trial and the trayvon martin shooting and is notable. His page should stay up.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dani0rad (talk • contribs)

Dani0rad please review WP:ABOUTSELF and Wikipedia:Third-party_sources to see how wikipedia defines 3rd party. In particular "A third-party source is one that is entirely independent of the subject being covered" - All of these pages you use are from sites and content affiliated with Rates. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:56, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

His bio on his work website is independent of him. You can see it was not written by him but by an Amanda who works at the station. Simiarly, I am working to include more references with videos he shot, but it is difficult considering a lot were before the times of youtube. However, there are videos from his Facebook page that prove what I have written.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dani0rad (talk • contribs)

That bio is not independent. BC108 (talk) 12:59, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 00:07, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 00:07, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 00:07, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 00:07, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Media-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 00:08, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as long as we don't have third-party sources that discuss, in-depth, what the subject has done. Drmies (talk) 03:30, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing establishes the subject of the article as notable, the refs are in the main by him, not about him. For someone supposedly in the public eye I though I'd easily find some and !vote keep, but I could not. I'd be happy to reconsider if such refs emerge. BC108 (talk) 12:59, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as questionable for WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 19:22, 7 February 2016 (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.