Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Briar Stewart

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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:48, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Briar Stewart

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

WP:BLP of a broadcast journalist, relying mainly on sources written by her rather than about her — the only source that actually contains any content about her is a university student newspaper, which is a class of sourcing that cannot contribute toward the meeting of WP:GNG, but is acceptable only for additional confirmation of facts after notability has been covered off by stronger sources. While the award might contribute toward the meeting of WP:JOURNALIST if it were sourced, the only sourcing present for that was a dead link to a PDF press release put out by the organization that gave the award — which is also a primary source that cannot contribute to passing GNG. A journalist does not get a Wikipedia article on the basis of sources in which she's the bylined author of content about other things — she gets into Wikipedia on the basis of sources in which she's the subject, but there aren't any of those here. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 21:27, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — sources in article don't seem to establish notability and I can't find any that do. Most of what shows up in a Google search seems to be social media accounts and mere mentions (e.g. "X is a journalist" without saying much more). dalahäst ^{(let's talk!)} 21:34, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 13:50, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 17:21, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete simply because my searches found nothing good aside from this and this (a few news links). SwisterTwister talk 06:40, 11 July 2015 (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.