Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brooks DeCillia


 * 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. czar 00:25, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Brooks DeCillia

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:BLP of a journalist, not reliably sourced as passing our notability standards for journalists. As always, journalists are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because their staff profiles on the self-published websites of their own employers offer technical verification that they exist -- to be notable enough for inclusion here, a journalist has to be the subject of coverage in sources other than his own employer. But as is so often the case, this is written more like a thinly veiled rewrite of his staff profile than like an encyclopedia article, is referenced entirely to primary sources (an academic scholarship's own self-published list of its own recipients, his academic dissertation referenced to its presence in his alma mater's directory of its own students' academic dissertations, and the staff profile) with no evidence of any coverage about him in any reliable or independent sources, and says nothing about him that would be "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be referenced much better than this. Bearcat (talk) 16:03, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:03, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:03, 8 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete a non-notable journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:21, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:BEFORE = a couple of quick searches online reveal a lot of possible sources about this Canadian journalist. Bearian (talk) 01:53, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Please show the best three sources you're seeing, because I'm finding absolutely nothing that would count as a reliable or notability-making source — all I'm getting is staff profiles on the self-published websites of his own employer and other affiliated organizations, blogs and pieces of his own bylined writing about other subjects, with not a shred of evidence of any reliable sources in which he's the subject. Bearcat (talk) 19:48, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:19, 15 April 2020 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:41, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. Clearly doesn’t meet GNG. I’m with, unable to find reliable secondary sources to establish notability.  Woerich   (talk)   05:42, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Not notable with no independent third-party coverage. sixty nine   • whaddya want? •  06:00, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. There are sources, but they might not be secondary and/or reliable. (Change from keep). Bearian (talk) 02:18, 26 April 2020 (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.