John Paczkowski ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

unsupported and inaccurate

Paczkowski continues to be very well known and a wildly important journalist. He's interviewed Apple CEO Tim Cook and broken all manner of news about Apple and other big tech companies.

His reporters have won pretty much every award in the business (Livingston, Polk, Pulitzer, Mirror, SABEW). He's completely resurrected Forbes tech reporting, which has led the industry on TikTok reporting: https://www.forbes.com/sites/emilybaker-white/2022/11/28/tiktoks-china-problem/?sh=550c549c1ee4

Announcement: https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbespr/2022/05/26/forbes-names-john-paczkowski-executive-editor-of-innovation-and-technology/?sh=218988244539 Buzzfeed Archive: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/author/johnpaczkowski Record Kara Swisher announcing Paczkowki's column: https://www.vox.com/2014/4/28/11626138/john-paczkowskis-back-with-daily-codered-column-on-recode Paczkowki's allthingsD archive. He was Kara Swisher and Walt Mossberg's first editorial hire: https://allthingsd.com/author/john/index.html Tim Cook interview: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/johnpaczkowski/twenty-minutes-with-tim-cook AirPods scoop: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/johnpaczkowski/inside-iphone-7-why-apple-killed-the-headphone-jack#

NOTE: This thread was origanally opened by AliceTheGoon. However, that user messed up the syntax. I am simply completing the request. NW1223< Howl at me• My hunts> 19:15, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

• Endorse as the AFD could not be closed any other way being unanimous for deletion. A draft can be submitted through articles for creation. -- Whpq ( talk) 19:51, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
• Endorse The discussion was correctly closed, albeit could probably have been relisted - my first thought was relist but the AfD is five months old, so there's no point. However there are new sources to review. Unfortunately, none of the newly presented sources appear properly secondary to me. No issues if someone wants to try to create a new article in draft space using different sources to these. SportingFlyer T· C 19:52, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
• Endorse the unanimous close of the AfD. There was no other way to close it, and we generally do not relist when views are unanimous and there are three or more valid participants. I'm still trying to parse what is "unsupported and inaccurate". The appellant, who joined WP three hours ago to file this malformed DRV, appears to be driven by something other than encyclopedic interest. With absolutely zero history of editing here, and a poor understanding of our notability guidelines, I think sending them to write a draft might be giving them false hope, and wasting their time and that of the AfC reviewer. That's not to say that a qualifying article about John Paczkowski couldn't be written, I just don't see the appellant, using the sources they cited, doing so. I don't like to WP:BITE newcomers, but when a newcomer's first edit on the project is to cast aspersions on AfD participants who dutifully did what we expect them to do, I tend to temper my expectations. Owen× ☎ 20:34, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
• Endorse the close. A good-faith appellant should be asking about submitting a draft, but, as per OwenX, this editor will waste their time and that of the reviewers if they submit a draft. An editor with moderate experience may submit a draft, or may create an article subject to AFD. We shouldn't be asking questions about the close. I can see that two of the references dumped appear to be non- independent. Robert McClenon ( talk) 22:37, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
• Endorse as there was consensus to delete. AfDs showing less participation than desired, but are otherwise of normal quality in terms of arguments expressed, should not be reflexively relisted.— Alalch E. 14:48, 30 March 2024 (UTC) reply