The result was delete. Salvio giuliano 19:51, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
WP:BLP of a journalist, not
properly referenced as passing our inclusion criteria for journalists. As always, journalists are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they have jobs -- the notability test does not hinge on the extent to which they've been the author of coverage of other things, it hinges on the extent to which they've been the subject of coverage authored by other people.
But the only notability claim being attempted here is that Brock Colyar exists, and the sourcing isn't cutting it in terms of getting them over
WP:GNG: three of the eight footnotes are pieces of their bylined journalism, four more are Q&A interviews in which they're answering questions about themselves in the first person, and the only one that actually represents third-party coverage is just a university student newspaper covering them only in the context of launching a local magazine, which is not enough coverage to pass GNG all by itself if none of the other sources represent what's required.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt them from having to have a lot more than just one GNG-worthy media hit.
Bearcat (
talk)
16:13, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Salvio giuliano 19:51, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
WP:BLP of a journalist, not
properly referenced as passing our inclusion criteria for journalists. As always, journalists are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they have jobs -- the notability test does not hinge on the extent to which they've been the author of coverage of other things, it hinges on the extent to which they've been the subject of coverage authored by other people.
But the only notability claim being attempted here is that Brock Colyar exists, and the sourcing isn't cutting it in terms of getting them over
WP:GNG: three of the eight footnotes are pieces of their bylined journalism, four more are Q&A interviews in which they're answering questions about themselves in the first person, and the only one that actually represents third-party coverage is just a university student newspaper covering them only in the context of launching a local magazine, which is not enough coverage to pass GNG all by itself if none of the other sources represent what's required.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt them from having to have a lot more than just one GNG-worthy media hit.
Bearcat (
talk)
16:13, 9 March 2023 (UTC)