Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Debra Arbec (2nd nomination)

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:54, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Debra Arbec

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Poorly sourced WP:BLP of a single-market local television journalist. As always, local television personalities are not automatically notable enough for Wikipedia articles just because they exist, but rather they need to meet one or both of two conditions: either they have a nationalized claim of significance, such as winning a noteworthy national journalism award, or they need to have enough reliable source coverage about them to pass WP:GNG. But the three footnotes here are her own staff profile on the self-published website of her own employer, a weekly community hyperlocal, and a university student newspaper -- which means the sourcing isn't good enough for GNG, and there's no nationalized notability claim being made here at all to relieve her of having to have better sources than this. Bearcat (talk) 00:53, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 00:53, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 00:53, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:23, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a local level broadcast jouranlist, nothing rises to the level of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:44, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This was originally closed as delete. Per the review at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 March 3, I'm backing out that close and relisting this for an additional week's discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 17:20, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – per nom, no evidence this meets GNG or NJOURNALIST. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 07:00, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the 2011 Gazette reference in the article easily meets GNG with it's in depth story about here. And I just added another recent in-depth piece. How User:Levivich doesn't this meet GNG? Also added ~~four~~ six other references related to her Canadian Screen Award nominations~~, win,~~ and previous awards. Nfitz (talk) 04:27, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sources that you can use to get a person over GNG do not include (a) the alumni magazine of their own alma mater, (b) small neighbourhood pennysavers like The Montrealer or The Suburban, (c) university student newspapers like The Concordian, or (d) content self-published by her own past or present employers. So the only source you've added that counts a bean toward getting her over GNG is the Montreal Gazette article, and that's not enough to singlehandedly pass GNG all by itself — even a basic GNG pass requires quite a bit more than just one source of that calibre.

Also, she did not win the Canadian Screen Award in 2019 — the winner of a category in that source is the person whose name is bolded, not the person whose name is first. The bolded name and winner in 2019 was Michelle Dubé, and Arbec has never won a Canadian Screen Award at all to date in any category. And the awards that she has won are much less notable awards that are not notability clinchers if they can be "sourced" only to her own staff profile from her own employer — the extent to which any award confers an WP:ANYBIO pass is always strictly coterminous with the extent to which the granting of that award gets reported as news by media other than her own employer. If your only possible sources for any given award are (a) her own staff profile on her own employer's website, or (b) the awarding organization's own self-published website or press release about itself, because fully independent /journalistic reportage about that award is non-existent, then by definition that award is not notable enough to make its winners notable for winning it.

And while the Canadian Screen Awards do get reported as news, and thus are an ANYBIO-passing award, merely being nominated for an award that a person has not won is still not an automatic inclusion freebie that would exempt her from having to get over GNG on her sourcing either — so she still needs more than just one solid source amid a bunch of university student newspapers, neighbourhood pennysavers and WP:SPIP from her own employer before she clears the bar. Bearcat (talk) 05:45, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't add the Montreal Gazette article - it was added by User:RebeccaGreen in November 2019 during the AFD - why did User:ST47 not mention that a GNG sournce had been added after everyone had commented, when they originally closed the AFD? I disagree with statement that Concordia article isn't good for GNG. It's an in-depth article about a notable former student. I also disagree that local newspapers don't count for notability - there's nothing to back that up GNG - though is "The Montrealer a local newspaper ... I thought it was a website, and wasn't counting it to GNG. Tell me more about these local newspaper articles that I haven't seen? Oops, I goofed about the award win - I appreciate the fix - but I didn't see that counted to GNG either, given the brevity of it - I even commented about those references not meeting GNG when I added them! Nfitz (talk) 08:46, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been reincluded in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Nfitz (talk) 04:32, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been reincluded in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Nfitz (talk) 04:32, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been reincluded in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Nfitz (talk) 04:32, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks any in-depth coverage from reliable, independent sources. Most coverage seems to be promotional blurbs from alumni organization, her TV station, network, or industry award organization announcing her nomination. Glendoremus (talk) 16:34, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why User:Glendoremus do you not think that this is not reliable, independent, and in-depth? Sure, many of the references are blurbs, etc., documenting her career. But that's fine, as long as there is some reliable independent in-depth coverage. Nfitz (talk) 18:48, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The rule is not that as long as there's one piece of reliable independent in-depth coverage, the person gets a free pass over GNG even if all the rest of their sourcing is unreliable, non-independent or non-in-depth junk — even just a basic WP:GNG pass requires several pieces of reliable, independent and in-depth coverage, not just one. Bearcat (talk) 03:43, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since when do we re-open months-old AfD debates? Still a non-notable local journalist, and overturning a close that had zero opposition doesn't seem to be right to me. ST47 (talk) 21:48, 15 March 2020 (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.