Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Austin Grabish


 * 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. This should have been nominated for speedy deletion as G4. ✗ plicit  10:25, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Austin Grabish

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Does not meet WP:NBIO- coverage is WP:RUNOFTHEMILL for a journalist. MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:34, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:19, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:19, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:19, 3 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete. As always, the notability test for journalists is not automatically passed just by verifying that the person exists — it requires external coverage and analysis of the significance of their work. That is, you do not demonstrate Austin Grabish's notability by citing sources where Austin Grabish was the bylined author of content about other things — you demonstrate it by citing sources where Austin Grabish was the subject of content written by other people. But that's not what these sources are: he's the author, not the subject, of a majority of them, and even the minority that were written by other people are not about him, but just namecheck his existence as a reporter who happened to have done some coverage of the topic that was actually the subject of the source, which is still not what we're looking for. And no, the "Ron Laidlaw Award" does not automatically guarantee inclusion in Wikipedia just because the article has the word "award" in it, either: if the award does not get covered by the media in order to establish its notability, such that the only source that can be found is Grabish's own employer tooting its own horn in an "our own team wins an award" piece, then people cannot be deemed notable for winning an award that isn't notable. Note also that an earlier article about him was deleted at Articles for deletion/Austin Grabish (reporter) — and other than the inclusion of an infobox (which is a formatting issue, not a notability test), this version is not an improvement over the first one. Bearcat (talk) 05:33, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you, that is very helpful. Given the previous article was deleted at AfD, what do you think about me nominating this version for CSD G4? Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:25, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, an article can't really be nominated for both CSD and AFD at the same time — it's one or the other, so you would have to withdraw this and close it if you wanted to go the other route instead. There have, conversely, been instances where the page was just immediately speedied by an administrator while the AFD discussion was still open, but since I've already commented in this discussion I can't take that step now. Bearcat (talk) 17:18, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Ahhh that does sound a bit messy, I think I'll just leave this AfD to run its course. Thanks for all your input. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:09, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheChronium  07:00, 10 July 2021 (UTC)


 * 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.