Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Journalism

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Journalism. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Journalism|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

Note that there are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Journalism.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Journalism/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Journalism[edit]

Ben Obese-Jecty[edit]

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

Candidates for UK Parliament are not automatically notable. Similarly, writing a few newspaper articles also does not confer notability. Propose deleting and if he is successful in his campaign, it would be appropriate to make a page once he is elected. Drerac (talk) 17:15, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Journalism, and United Kingdom. Cleo Cooper (talk) 18:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:43, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not pass WP:GNG, vast majority of sources cited in article are written by article subject. J2m5 (talk) 02:48, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the number of sources appears to indicate notability for journalism purposes as well as his political career. If the decision is not made to keep the article, moving to draft space would make more sense than deletion, which would only mean a well-written article most likely having to be recreated from scratch after the election if he wins. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 07:14, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Woke Mind Virus[edit]

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

Feels entirely like WP:NEO. Half the usage section is just dedicated to Elon Musk (at the time of AFD nomination).

Look I understand Go woke, go broke exists, but that feels like WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Is every popular iteration of a phrase invoking the ideas of wokeness going to have its own article?

According to the article, "Vanity Fair has titled whole sections of stories under the "Woke Mind Virus" label." This isn't actually a label that is selectable/catagorized/tagged like "politics", but a custom label for one article.

I do not doubt the phrase's usage in popular media and by influential people, but it is essentially the same thing as woke. I could go on, but I think this can be deleted and redirected to woke. Alternatively, this content can be merged into woke as its own section with the criticism. -- Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 01:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Journalism, News media, Philosophy, Conservatism, Discrimination, History, and Politics. Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 01:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, since WP:NEO is cited, let us see what it says, Articles on neologisms that have little or no usage in reliable sources are commonly deleted, but in this case this phrase is very widely cited across an enormous variety of reliable sources. The phrase probably should also be mentioned at the woke article and other mentions should be added and included, but a page for Woke Mind Virus itself makes sense given the sources as broad and significant as they are. Iljhgtn (talk) 02:27, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Iljhgtn, yes it is popular term, this is already addressed. WP:NEO also says, Some neologisms can be in frequent use, and it may be possible to pull together many facts about a particular term and show evidence of its usage on the Internet or in larger society. This is not in question. I do not doubt it will be utilized in large portions of media and scholarly works. Until it is shown to be its own distinct concept, it is essentially a branch term used to criticize wokeness. There is a criticism section in woke that this neologism can direct to in my opinion. Currently, Anti-woke redirects to woke. Anti-woke is an older term than woke mind virus and used it much more media/scholarly works. WMV is just a substitute term for being against wokeness (or anti-woke). Alternatively, I think a separate article that incorporates reliable secondary sources say about the term or concept, not just sources that use the term titled something along the lines of "Criticisms of woke/wokeness" or even "anti-woke" could also be appropriate, where WMV redirects to. I do not see the point of a standalone article about Woke Mind Virus. -- Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 02:57, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge/redirect no evidence that this neologism deserves a stand-alone wikipedia article. (t · c) buidhe 07:39, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As a neologism, there are numerous treatments in secondary sources (see Isaacson, Ali, Krugman, McKeown and Wright, etc.). Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:32, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Passes WP:NEO and has coverage by reliable sources. BlakeIsHereStudios (talk | contributions) 16:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Selectively merge and redirect to woke. There's no separate subject here -- it's the same "woke" pejorative discussed in that article. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Redirect, maybe i'm just biased because this is an inherently silly sounding phrase, but I don't see how it differentiates from the term "Woke" so a redirect there would be optimal. Samoht27 (talk) 16:50, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Woke, it's just a slight variation of the exact same thing. Di (they-them) (talk) 16:58, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A couple people have suggested a merge or redirect, but I would like to point out that this term "woke mind virus" actually has quite substantial coverage of its own differentiating it quite a bit from "woke" and therefore a mere mention of this term on that page seems to be inadequate. This source mentions the term as distinct but was early in coverage so does not yet mention what WMV means. This source mentions the WMV phrase in depth by itself completely independent of "woke". This source mentions the history of the term, especially as used specifically by Elon Musk since around 2021 and in reference to San Francisco and includes some of the defining language that separates and distinguishes this phrase at is popularly understood by sources, Despite his repeated use of the phrase, the precise meaning of “woke mind virus” has been difficult to pin down. Musk told Bill Maher during an interview on HBO: “I think we need to be very cautious about anything that is anti-meritocratic, and anything that … results in the suppression of free speech. Those are two aspects of the woke mind virus that I think are very dangerous.” This source speaks uniquely of the WMV by saying much about Musk's use of it from a critical perspective. This source again uses both "woke" as well as WMV and refers to them as distinct terms with their own meanings. This source predominantly focuses on just the "woke" phrase but has an important passing mention of WMV, though obviously passing mentions in general are not to carry weight towards an AfD consideration. This source covers the phrase and the Netflix mention with some detail. I believe the above, and much more can be found with fairly little work and effort actually to support an independent page for both the WMV phrase as well as woke and other phrases mentioned by other editors.Iljhgtn (talk) 19:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Accesswire[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP a before finds no significant coverage in independent sources, the article has only primary sources, seems like there is nothing else. Theroadislong (talk) 06:36, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They claim to lead the industry but according to customers they just spam press releases to some obscure websites. Polygnotus (talk) 06:41, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Theroadislong (talk) 06:36, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Would need a major overhaul with proper sourcing to meet GNG.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:32, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is one of the largest press release companies, it is well-known, so it's very very hard to find coverage that is independent from Accesswire. I've spent 15 minutes looking and I can't see anything. If someone can find and send over a few links that are, I am quite willing to change my vote to keep. Cleo Cooper (talk) 07:59, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as creator: Echoing Cleo. I created this page as it is a widely known company in the PR world, and (referenced quite extensively). I started this article as stub, to eventually work on it, but I never had the time. If someone can save it, please do. But as the creator, I remain neutral. Cheers, Reh man 10:36, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and North Carolina. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Ratcliff (producer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG/WP:NBIO, and I do not believe being a producer for a notable band is an automatic WP:NMUSIC pass either. I could not locate sources with substantial coverage of Ratcliff. All sources cover him only peripherally, as a producer for a-Ha. The article is now primarily an autobiography. Would accept a redirect to a-Ha as an alternative to deletion. Jfire (talk) 03:54, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Music, and United Kingdom. Jfire (talk) 03:54, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Journalism, Television, Advertising, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:44, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
agree that REDIRECT to a-Ha is appropriate. Most sources are primary references. The only third party references are more about a-Ha with this subject being mentioned tangentially. Otherwise, this article seems more promotional than anything else. ShelbyMarion (talk) 18:27, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia Lette[edit]

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

Most of the coverage I found relates to her being married to cricketer Ed Cowan so WP:NOTINHERITED applies. Found no significant coverage of her or her career to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 02:42, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Television, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 02:42, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Music, and Radio. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:28, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete –The article has been around for 15 years and yet is struggling to justify notability. Add content about her to her husband's page. Should she satisfy WP:GNG at a later date, cross this bridge then. MaskedSinger (talk) 06:41, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

VDud[edit]

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

Reviewed during NPP. This is an unusual situation; the subject is a YouTube channel. The creator (Yury Dud) is wp:notable primarily via unrelated areas. The references here barely even mention VDud much less GNG coverage and there really isn't coverage derived from them. This is basically nothing but a self-written catalog of the YouTube channel. The article on the creator seems to have encyclopedic coverage of vDud, but is also confusing, seeming to be covering unrelated things as being vD. IMO the tiny bit of enclyclopedic content here should be merged into Yury Dud. Someday if someone could get GNG references and derive content from them that might viable. North8000 (talk) 19:17, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 23:59, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Internet, and Russia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:12, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Yury_Dud#vDud, where the subject is already covered. Does not appear to be independently notable. --K.e.coffman (talk) 07:13, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as suggested in the comment above seems like the best choice, the Youtube channel doesn't seem to have much coverage we could use.Oaktree b (talk) 00:05, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Malik Siraj Akbar[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This BLP, created by a SPA Jarisful (talk · contribs), appears to have been authored by the subject themselves, as he's an experienced editor. This BLP is very promotional in nature, citing unreliable and even unacceptable sources, such as opinion pieces penned by the subject themselves and such pieces are generally not admissible as references. While the subject has garnered some press coverage, but it's too common for journalists to get some sort of press attention on every one of them. To me, this one doesn't appear to meet the criteria outlined in WP:JOURNALIST as well WP:GNG. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 15:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Politics, Internet, Pakistan, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:04, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:37, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP but the article needs to be improved by removing unsourced and primary sources. --Twinkle1990 (talk) 16:01, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But as I said the subject doesn't satisfy WP:GNG or even WP:JOURNALIST so what's the point of cleaning up BLP ? --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 16:20, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Emmanuel Kwasi Debrah[edit]

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

The subject is not notable, WP:REFBOMB with sources written by the subject or the company he works for, 95% of the sources emanated from JoyNews where he works. As seen [here] and [here, ]. There are even cases where the sources directly came from the subject as seen [here]. Apart from that, most of the sources are not Reliable and are not Independent Ibjaja055 (talk) 13:51, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Journalism, Poetry, and Ghana. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:27, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:39, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All these anomalies are corrected Gyanford (talk) 10:06, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vương Xuân Nguyên[edit]

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

was previously pushed for WP:PROD due to sockpuppet activities, but think we should have an AfD for it at least User:Sawerchessread (talk) 18:30, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment apparently deleted twice on Vietnamese wikipedia: https://vi.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=V%C6%B0%C6%A1ng_Xu%C3%A2n_Nguy%C3%AAn&action=edit&redlink=1 User:Sawerchessread (talk) 18:35, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 April 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:55, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Vietnam. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:58, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this article is created by a sock related to a very big PR ring with over 100 confirmed socks (see article talk page for more info). This person has no real achievement, so he's not notable. He likely paid this PR service to have his own article on Wikipedia. For your info, news article can be bought in Vietnam. All the sources are likely bought. It's a common tactic in Vietnam for PR. 2600:6C44:117F:95BE:24FB:4C07:F5C1:5E5F (talk) 11:11, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This IP address belongs to Nguyentrongphu, who was previously banned for the reason "Clearly not here to build an encyclopedia, following ANI threads". On Vietnamese Wikipedia, instead of preserving articles, he deletes articles or reverts edits that he deems to be violations without providing valid evidence. Conversely, he adds spam links to Wikipedia. See 1, 2, 3, 4 203.205.26.11 (talk) 05:57, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wikipedia's policy, all articles/edits from socks must be deleted and reverted. Admin Nguyentrongphu did nothing wrong here. There is a reason that all the other Vietnamese admins are ignoring this sock. 2600:6C44:117F:95BE:2C09:4A70:C286:9B2F (talk) 07:48, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This IP belongs to a very big PR ring. See here. This ring has over 100 socks and has created hundreds of PR articles. We have deleted all of them after they were caught. Everything this sock says cannot be trusted (words taken out of context, misleading statements, false accusations and etc). Anyways, we should actually focus on the article's notability instead of throwing false, random accusation around. 2600:6C44:117F:95BE:2C09:4A70:C286:9B2F (talk) 08:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Admin Nguyentrongphu is the most anti-admin we have in Vietnamese Wikipedia for more than 10 years. Everyone in Vietnamese Wikipedia knows this. Claiming that he supports PR activities is laughable. 2600:6C44:117F:95BE:2C09:4A70:C286:9B2F (talk) 08:21, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the "WP:SOCKPUPPET accusation", he has no specific technical evidence, but only his own inferences. See: 5 203.205.26.11 (talk) 06:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Last check was successful. Current check is on-going. The checkuser is currently busy. Plenty of evidences were provided, what are you talking about? The fact is that this article is created by 2 different socks from the same person. User:Cuongpham8 is confirmed to be a sock. You're a sock too. I'm not a sock. 2600:6C44:117F:95BE:2C09:4A70:C286:9B2F (talk) 07:45, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are a sock of Nguyentrongphu, who was previously banned for the reason "Clearly not here to build an encyclopedia, following ANI threads". 203.205.26.11 (talk) 08:50, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know a difference between a ban and a block? Nguyentrongphu is never banned. You're a sock related to the PR ring. Nobody is consistently defending this article like you do. 2600:6C44:117F:95BE:2C09:4A70:C286:9B2F (talk) 09:39, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Vuong Xuan Nguyen, this individual has ample evidence to demonstrate his prominence. A Google search using the keyword "Vuong Xuan Nguyen" yields approximately 37,500,000 results (0.28 seconds). See: 1 203.205.26.11 (talk) 08:55, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

37 million results lol? Most of the results are not even the same person. If he's notable, why the need to pay for a PR firm to create an article for him on Wikipedia? 2600:6C44:117F:95BE:2C09:4A70:C286:9B2F (talk) 09:59, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:GOOGLEHITS. Read our notability guideline here. Industrial Insect (talk) 18:45, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The results of the review by a reviewer have repeatedly confirmed that the accounts above are not sockpuppet activities. See: 1 112.218.57.237 (talk) 05:48, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently no technical evidence so far, but there is strong behavioral evidence (Wikipedia:DUCK). User:Monpham (a very new account) recreated the exact same article created by a confirmed sock. Monpham also uploaded the picture in the article to Commons. Also, the sockpuppet investigation is on-going and not done yet. P/S: why are you using a proxy from Italy? 2600:6C44:117F:95BE:E565:345:8F07:4EDD (talk) 10:54, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:04, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'd really like to see at least 1 non-Vietnamese source. All of the sources listed do not count towards GNG, and any other Vietnamese sources are likely to tell the same tale. According to Telecommunications in Vietnam, "The government controls all broadcast media exercising oversight through the Ministry of Information and Communication." I will be abbreviating Ministry of Information and Communications as MIC. I'm reading similar statements in other articles about journalism in Vietnam as well. Because of this, the independence and reliability of all Vietnamese sources about this subject is harder to determine, as the MIC may have influence or control over the publication. Because the subject is associated with state-owned/controlled areas, this poses a concern to me about determining notability. This viwiki page is a viwiki listing of official sources and includes which ones are directly state-owned - I will be abbreviating this page as VIRSPS, as in WP:RSPS. Below is my source assessment–it is a bit lengthy.

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:WhoAteMyButter
https://vanhoavaphattrien.vn/vuong-xuan-nguyen-a18339.html	May be under MIC control; MIC permit or similar governmental control	Seems to be a PR article, plus other articles suggest it may be a mouthpiece.		✘ No
https://baoquangninh.vn/nha-bao-vuong-xuan-nguyen-nhung-dau-an-tren-chang-duong-20-nam-hoat-dong-bao-chi-3273185.html	MIC concerns.	No author information, MIC concerns.		✘ No
https://kinhtevadubao.vn/nha-bao-vuong-xuan-nguyen-nghe-bao-la-mot-su-tinh-co-da-lam-thay-doi-cuoc-doi-3095.html	Source is Journal of Economics and Forecast - Ministry of Planning and Investment	Direct government source, likely to be no editorial oversight		✘ No
https://www.doisongvaphattrien.vn/mot-so-bai-viet-va-tu-lieu-ve-nha-bao-vuong-xuan-nguyen-a38874.html	Unclear author, only "PV".	Author, cites Wikipedia, and then dumps 55 links with nothing further (I am not going to source assess 55 links.)	One circular paragraph.	✘ No
https://ngoisao.net.vn/tap-chi-khoa-hoc-phat-trien-nong-thon-viet-nam-gap-mat-than-mat-va-khai-but-dau-xuan-a1407.html	Author is "Huy Hoang", article contains a lot of interviews. Source seems to state "Journal of Development Science Vietnam Rural Areas (PHANO Magazine) has done well its role as the mouthpiece of the Central Vietnam Rural Development Science Association" [translated]. Likely to not be independent.	MIC.	~ Source is more about the meeting, but does include some information on subject.	✘ No
https://www.nguoiduatin.vn/ra-mat-chuyen-trang-hoi-nhap-cua-tap-chi-dien-tu-van-hoa-va-phat-trien-a522998.html	Seems to be a direct mouthpiece.	No information about author.	Only in passing mention.	✘ No
https://tienphong.vn/chuyen-gia-sinh-vat-canh-ven-man-nhung-giao-dich-lan-tien-ty-su-that-bat-ngo-post1257714.tpo	VIRSPS, all of article content seems to be an interview or similar.	No information on author.		✘ No
https://vtv.vn/kinh-te/dua-nhau-bia-gia-tren-troi-nguoi-choi-lan-khien-thi-truong-nao-loan-2020071010124399.htm	VIRSPS	Same author as above, most of content seems to be interview and may be copy of above source.		✘ No
https://baohagiang.vn/rao-vat/202312/nha-bao-vuong-xuan-nguyen-tu-chu-duyen-voi-bao-chi-den-chu-tam-voi-nghe-sinh-vat-canh-7cb3a05/	MIC concerns.	Seems to be entirely PR, unclear author (author listed seems to name a group).		✘ No
https://baomoi.com/gap-nha-bao-vuong-xuan-nguyen-tren-nhung-trang-viet-moi-c47667935.epi	Copy of first source, footer also says "BAOMOI synthesizes and arranges information automatically by computer program".			✘ No
https://dangcongsan.vn/thoi-su/le-tang-cap-cao-nha-bao-lao-thanh-do-phuong-457515.html	Seems to be mouthpiece.	MIC, mouthpiece.	Does not mention subject.	✘ No
https://hoinhap.vanhoavaphattrien.vn/nha-bao-vuong-xuan-nguyen-voi-bao-doi-song-va-phap-luat-a11039.html	Same concerns as 1st source.			✘ No
https://kinhtevadubao.vn/nha-bao-vuong-xuan-nguyen-duoc-tang-ky-niem-chuong-vi-su-nghiep-bao-chi-viet-nam-23064.html	Same concerns as 3rd source.			✘ No
https://phapluatkinhdoanh.vn/index.php/nha-bao-vuong-xuan-nguyen-duoc-tang-ky-niem-chuong-vi-su-nghiep-bao-chi-viet-nam-a2528.html	Interview, MIC concerns.	Author is Bach Hein, see 'baohagiang' source.		✘ No
https://baodongkhoi.vn/gap-nha-bao-vuong-xuan-nguyen-tren-nhung-trang-viet-chan-thuc-04122023-a123269.html	Copy of 2nd source.			✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

As such, I don't see general notability. He may be important in official Vietnamese government inner-circles, but as far as I can tell, he doesn't meet GNG. More Vietnamese sources aren't going to help because of independence concerns. As for WP:BEFORE, I can't find any sources that are (a) not based in Vietnam and subject to MIC, or (b) about the subject. WhoAteMyButter (🌷_talk│🌻^contribs) 05:26, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fredrick Nwabufo[edit]

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

WP:MILL journalist, non-notable. Broc (talk) 09:40, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Nigeria. Broc (talk) 09:40, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fredrick Nwabufo is Nigerian Journalist who have constantly conversed for good governance, improved security and commenting on national issues using journalism as well being a columnist on major National newspaper in Nigeria as a tool to disseminate his constant call for good governance and Patriotism. He is also currently the Senior Special Assistant to President Bola Tinubu on Public engagement where he is saddled with the responsibility of interfacing between the government and the Nigerian public.

I believe this article deserve a place on Wikipedia.

Thanks. AromeArome (talk) 22:01, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AromeArome How does this meet WP:NJOURNALIST or WP:NPOL? Broc (talk) 13:18, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:42, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to have had a reasonable amount of coverage to meet WP:GNG. He's also a senior advisor to the Nigerian president, so not really fair to call him a "run of the mill" journalist. Article needs NPOV cleanup, though. AusLondonder (talk) 12:14, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 16:51, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, agree with what AusLondoner said above. Does need to be better when it comes to NPOV. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:24, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Dreyfuss[edit]

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

Per discussion on the talk page, I believe this article on Ben Dreyfuss should be deleted. I have searched for meaningful second-party references to his career or body of work and am coming up short -- he does not seem to be notable as either a creative professional or writer. As far as I can tell, his most significant mentions are minor social media disputes. This article has, as far as I can tell, never included appropriate references and has at times leaned on inappropriate references (ie, personal LinkedIn or Facebook pages). The only current reference is an article about Richard Dreyfuss, not his son Ben.

Since being related to a famous person by itself confers no notability (WP:BIOFAMILY), I think Ben Dreyfuss fails the notability check on his own. Geethree (talk) 13:45, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 April 6. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:11, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Journalism, and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:13, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Soft keep There are a handful of reliable sources with significant coverage of Ben (not just his father). See here, here, here, here, here, here. I'd say it's just over the threshold for notability but I can see how someone would make a different judgment call. P.S. If the AfD consensus is to delete this article, Emily Dreyfuss should probably go through AfD as well on similar grounds. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:46, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Dclemens1971, I looked at the above sources you presented especially the first and second, which are simply interviews about a family. Others seems also though I didn't continued since first matters. Also we don't say because this person isn't notable, we should go for an article that has nothing to do with this AFD. Remember that journalists are taken to pass entry not only for the interviews they go always, but for coverage of them on a particular writing or style. If we should use those sources which are interviews per WP:INTERVIEW, then, we are incorporating unverifiable source—they says everything about them. — Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 09:00, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He was the editorial director of Mother Jones (magazine) which would possibly not be enough in itself, but is not chopped liver, here he is being interviewed strictly about that. Between that and the various things DClemens mentions above, it should be enough. --GRuban (talk) 03:59, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- GRuban, I just want to drive in: being such a writer of such magazines is not notability. I will also say you'do read it analyse the source per SE! — Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 09:05, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per above! Cleanup and sourcing. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 00:48, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:01, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article about an individual that doesn't meet the general notability guidelines for a journalist and actor. For WP:JOURNALIST, the article were less/not supported by any reliable source. Primarily, covering news is not same as you covered in news. The question is, has his writing influenced any style, time, etc like a normal writer? has his journalism been covered per WP:SIGCOV or for a particular incident. The answer per WP:BEFORE is "no". Appearing on few films not as lead doesn't mean the person is notable per WP:NACTOR, there are more or less sources to verify he was cast if not databases like IMDb, etc. While I have analysed this article doesn't meet our notability guidelines for an entry. Likewise the imitator, there is a case of WP:BIOFAMILY, as the article percent were sources from his family, his father, who was a notable actor. In my researches, almost if not all the sources were about his father lining a bit of the son, so, this is a case of WP:INHERITED. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 07:05, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:44, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – At this stage, I would delete and add whatever to Richard's page. If over time, he becomes more notable, he may justify his own article. This isn't now. MaskedSinger (talk) 06:37, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To me, slightly fleshing out Richard's page (and deleting this one) seems like the clear solution here. Most of the links provided above are all about Ben in relation to his father, not about Ben per se. If that is the eventual consensus, I'm happy to make those updates myself. Geethree (talk) 16:57, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MaskedSinger, there is nothing to add here. Neither going for 23 eye surgeries nor being born by notable parents (WP:INHERITED) doesn't mean we should redirect or merge. Tis article is credibly have no context, sources that analysed his characters or directing, any award?, what cognitive impact he has made. I don't see much of his parents role here . As a matter of fact, let's judge it in it's own accord! — Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 08:54, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Claudia Rivero (journalist)[edit]

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

Non-notable per WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Appears to be an autobiography, and in a WP:BEFORE search the only secondary coverage I can find is what's cited here. The rest is primary sources and passing mentions. The only mention I can find of awards is on primary sources like her website, with no mention of her on the Emmys or AP websites. Wikishovel (talk) 05:06, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Journalism, Arizona and Pennsylvania. Wikishovel (talk) 05:06, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes criteria 1 of WP:ANYBIO and criteria 4 of WP:JOURNALIST as the winner of a Rocky Mountain Emmy Award in 2007. The website archives are incomplete, going back only to 2011. She is widely cited though in RS as an Emmy winner in passing (for example https://www.local10.com/news/2014/01/10/teacher-charged-with-having-sex-with-student/ ) The off-hand mentions of awards from the associated press also occur. It would be career suicide to lie about that kind of thing for a journalist. So all and all, not seeing a good argument here for not passing the criteria for those WP:SNGs.4meter4 (talk) 20:20, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@4meter4: that article actually quotes an unrelated student named Claudia Rivero, and the Emmy winner is some other reporter. And I still can't find a secondary source about the reporter Claudia Rivero winning an Emmy. Wikishovel (talk) 20:41, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If we are able to locate a list of winners of the 2007 Rocky Mountain Emmy Awards (which should be feasible in off-line refs for sure) it should verify the win. She is on the nominees list https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/view/5970167/2007-rocky-mountain-emmyr-nominees but unfortunately this does not list the winners.4meter4 (talk) 21:54, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:18, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft - if there is confusion about different people with the same/similar names then I'm thinking the sensible move is to draft until there is clarity who is who. JMWt (talk) 07:43, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:27, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 13:08, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Twinkle1990 (talk) 14:57, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable journalist; we only consider Regional Emmys notable with much more sourcing than what's here. This is simply a list of where the person has worked, nothing showing why they're notable. I can only find PR or primary sources. Oaktree b (talk) 15:25, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions[edit]

Paul Ingles (via WP:PROD on 22 January 2024)