Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bruce Livesey (journalist)

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. Bearcat makes a very convincing argument, and their interpretation of policy is spot on. While the numbers are 3/2 to delete, based on the strength of the arguments, consensus is clear. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:01, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Livesey (journalist)

[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)

WP:BLP of a journalist, not properly sourced as passing WP:JOURNALIST. As always, the notability test for a journalist is not passed by using his own work as metaverification that his work exists -- it's passed by using third party coverage about him and his work as verification that it's been externally deemed as significant by sources other than his own employers. That is, he doesn't become notable by being the author of media coverage about other things, he becomes notable by being the subject of media coverage written by other people. But this is referenced almost entirely to his own bylined work, and the only sources that actually represent independent coverage or analysis about his work are from a podcast and an advocacy organization, which are not solid enough to clinch his notability all by themselves if they're the best sources on offer. And while there are valid notability claims here that would qualify him for an article that was sourced properly, there's nothing here that's "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be sourced better than this. Bearcat (talk) 15:48, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:48, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:48, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Strongly oppose deletion. There are now 21 references in which Livesey is profiled or his work reviewed. Thanks

for drawing my attention to this and also for your work promoting more First Nations journalists, a worthwhile project. I would like to see more Wikipedia articles about Canadian journalists and Canadian news outlets.Oceanflynn (talk) 18:41, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, even after your changes there still aren't 21 notability-supporting sources here. Six of the footnotes are "staff" profiles on the self-published websites of his own past and present employers, which are not notability-making sources. Another six are still his own bylined work metaverifying its own existence. Three are still from the same podcast, two are still from the same advocacy organization, one is from a student media publication, and one is steadfastly refusing to actually load at all in order for me to verify exactly what it is or isn't (but is stated in the citation as coming from a cable community channel, which is the Canadian equivalent of public access television and thus wouldn't be notability-making sourcing regardless of what it is or isn't.)

Only two of the 21 footnotes are actually starting to build any case for notability at all — the National Post and Quill & Quire are steps in the right direction, as they're actual reviews of his work in real GNG-worthy media outlets, but a person still needs more than just two of those to clear the bar. Articles about journalists, as a rule, frequently run into this problem: content self-published by their own employers, such as staff profiles, don't help to establish their notability at all, and it can be very nearly impossible to actually devise a viable search term that finds coverage about the journalist (which helps notability) while filtering out primary source staff profiles and coverage produced by the journalist (which do not help notability) — which is why, in reality, most of the "work" I've done on journalists recently has involved redirecting redlinked names of potentially notable, but not yet properly sourceable, journalists like Melissa Ridgen and Asha Tomlinson and Chris Ensing to their employers. Bearcat (talk) 21:58, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bearcat To avoid deletion of this article, I have been re-reading various protocols on the AfD process to better understand the process. While previously articles I have created have succeeded in AfD, it is always helpful to learn more. As suggested in the deletion policy section, "Alternatives to deletion" I have added two maintenance templates. I am hoping through the article stub template to invite more participation from the Journalism Project to this discussion. I added the "more citations needed" template, to respond to your major concern.

The policy Notability in a nutshell reads: "A person is presumed to be notable if they have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." In your statement you narrow in the case of journalists, by saying that the notability test for a journalist is only valid when it is, "passed by using third party coverage about him and his work as verification that it's been externally deemed as significant by sources other than his own employers." The problem with adding "other than his employers" is that a journalist who has worked in Canada's mass media industry for over 35 years, has worked and/or published in almost every major newspaper and outlet in Canada along with PBS, NPR in the United States and the Guardian in the UK. There are many journalists in Canada whose notability would suffer from the same dilemma—they have worked for too many major media outlets. I was surprised to see how few Canadian newspaper reporters and correspondents, and Canadian investigative journalists have Wikipedia articles. Of those that do, there are many with weak sources. For many, their obituaries were the main source. If there are notable in death, why not when they were living?Oceanflynn (talk) 18:55, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say that any coverage of him that ever appears in a news outlet he previously worked for is permanently inadmissible forever even if it's published long, long after he doesn't actually work there anymore — that's very different than his own current employer writing about stuff he did for that self-same current employer. But the single most important thing you cannot do is stake his notability as a journalist on the existence of "our staff" profiles in his own employers' websites — you need journalist-written news stories about him and his accomplishments, not "meet our team" staff directories, to make a journalist notable. Bearcat (talk) 21:09, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

strong keep this is an award-winning journalist, awards convey notability. While only co-winner of the Dupont award, he won the 2008 national magazine award (and apparently again in 2013), a Canadian Journalism Award and a national newspaper award for the Irving story. There is clearly enough here for notability. Also his book was nominated for an award. see [1]. --hroest 14:59, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An award gets a person over our notability standards only to the extent that said award garners reliable source coverage about the presentation of said award to demonstrate that it's seen as a notable award. If you have to rely on the article subject's own staff profile on the self-published website of his own employer to source an award win, because independent third-party media coverage that treats the award win as a news story is nonexistent, then that award is not a notability-making award — no award is a notability claim until you can source the presentation of the award to journalistic reportage about the award ceremony. Bearcat (talk) 15:21, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the well reasoned nomination of the deletion proposer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:07, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:04, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's been quite a lot of work gone into this, but I've been through it carefully and have to accept Bearcat's analysis. It just doesn't add up to a notable person and doesn't pass WP:JOURNALIST. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:16, 20 April 2021 (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.