Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carley Shimkus


 * 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. Black Kite (talk) 23:53, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Carley Shimkus

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:BIO and is just another TV person doing their job. People are not notable for doing their jobs, even on TV. The referencing lacks substance. Primary sources. My WP:BEFORE failed to find any useful sources. Fiddle Timtrent Faddle Talk to me 14:44, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 14:44, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions.  Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 14:44, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 14:44, 23 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete Despite her public face, there is a lack of significant coverage, as well as incidentally a lack of in-depth coverage. Fails WP:GNG. --Bejnar (talk) 17:23, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, just because she is on TV doesn't mean she is notable in Wikipedia terms, no in-depth significant coverage of her in reliable sources. Theroadislong (talk) 17:39, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete, the current sourcing is very poor and I fail to find any secondary/independent coverage in reliable sources. --bonadea contributions talk 21:02, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, co-anchor on national news program meets notability.Patapsco913 (talk) 23:04, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, almost daily appearances by the biggest news network as well as coverage from at least 2 reputable independent sources. Sucker for All (talk) 10:00, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
 * In what sense is this "the biggest news network"? (Not that it would make any difference even if it were the biggest in the world, which it isn't. Timtrent phrased it quite well in the nomination: people do not become notable simply because they are doing their job well. If there is no significant coverage of a TV news anchor in reliable independent sources, then that TV news anchor is not notable.) --bonadea contributions talk 20:17, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Biggest = most viewed . Fox News, https://video.foxnews.com/v/6011106173001#sp=show-clips, where she will be on the air in 4 hours and again for the next 4 days, is the most viewed network in the world. Would be good to get an admin's POV. ( https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6178745/Bill-Maher-slams-patriotic-bulls-t-taking-place-NFL-MLB.html is another article in which she appears prominently) Sucker for All (talk) 04:41, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * According to the sources for the WP article about Fox News, it is pretty far from being the most viewed news network in the world. But that is a red herring anyway. Even if she did work for (for instance) BBC World News it would make no difference, if there are no reliable independent sources. Daily Mail is a deprecated source. --bonadea contributions talk 08:02, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Fox is the top news network in the US (see https://www.statista.com/statistics/373814/cable-news-network-viewership-usa/) and she is a co-anchor on one of its shows. That is sufficient for notability. The Daily Beast is reliable considering all it is stating is what her role is and not anything controversial (see WP:DAILYBEAST "There is no consensus on the reliability of The Daily Beast. Most editors consider The Daily Beast a biased or opinionated source. Some editors advise particular caution when using this source for controversial statements of fact related to living persons."). Is not an outside source better? Fox & Friends is reliable in this situation since it is interviewing a person who actually works for the program (I don't think CNN or MSNBC is going to interview her) Also, she is one of the few Hispanic co-anchors in news media that serves a national audience. Patapsco913 (talk) 15:04, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Regrettably, two passing mentions in a daily beast article is not significant coverage whether you believe it to be reliable or not. Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 17:49, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clarifying that Sucker for All's claim was a typo. --bonadea contributions talk 08:29, 30 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment: I have performed a source analysis. I have placed it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Carley Shimkus, stating the permalink analysed. No sources used have any value towards notability. Other editors may disagree, and should provide justification Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 13:59, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I added two sources that she is the official co-anchor of Fox & Friends First, the most watched news show in the M-F, 4-6 am timeslot. Patapsco913 (talk) 15:32, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Both of these are press releases or regurgitated press releases and do not aid her in passing Notability (people) Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 15:37, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * She is officially the co-anchor of the top national news program in the US in the M-F, 4-6 am news slot which definitely makes her notable which the sources demonstrate.Patapsco913 (talk) 16:05, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * @Patapsco913, it looks like you've literally never !voted other than keep in an AfD? —valereee (talk) 20:34, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I only vote if I think there is an argument to keep an article. Most AFDs are obvious and not worth my time. I have salvaged numerous articles by adding needed sources.Patapsco913 (talk) 20:39, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Aight. It's a little startling when someone with 118K edits starts arguing that being an official co-anchor in "the most watched news show in the M-F, 4-6 am" somehow automatically confers notability. —valereee (talk) 20:45, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Well I thought I was following the correct process: I added some sources which I thought provided evidence of notability and even if it does not perfectly follow the "guidelines", I threw it out there for discussion (like so many other discussions on AfD). What did I do wrong? Nevertheless, it has been deemed insufficient and I will move on. Patapsco913 (talk) 22:38, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patapsco913 (talk • contribs) 16:16, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * So first the claim was "she works for the biggest news network in the world", then it was "she works for the biggest news network in one country", and now it is "she works for the biggest news programme at a specific time in one country". In any case, it is irrelevant how large the news network is, since merely appearing as a news anchor does not make a person notable, as explained repeatedly above.
 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patapsco913 (talk • contribs) 16:16, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * So first the claim was "she works for the biggest news network in the world", then it was "she works for the biggest news network in one country", and now it is "she works for the biggest news programme at a specific time in one country". In any case, it is irrelevant how large the news network is, since merely appearing as a news anchor does not make a person notable, as explained repeatedly above.
 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patapsco913 (talk • contribs) 16:16, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * So first the claim was "she works for the biggest news network in the world", then it was "she works for the biggest news network in one country", and now it is "she works for the biggest news programme at a specific time in one country". In any case, it is irrelevant how large the news network is, since merely appearing as a news anchor does not make a person notable, as explained repeatedly above.


 * As for the five sources listed here, the first four are the same source, a PR that was apparently published in its entirety by Businesswire (source 3 above) and regurgitated in source 1, 2, and 4. Source 5 is also based on the same PR, with a couple of additional sentences about the person Shimkus is replacing. As you know, press releases do not show notability, and if the same PR is published in four places, it is still only one single, primary and non-independent, source. There is nothing here to indicate that Shimkus is notable, as Wikipedia defines notability. --bonadea contributions talk 08:29, 30 October 2021 (UTC)


 * You need to reread my post. I never said "biggest news network in the US", I said "top news network in the US" and provided a link to demonstrate it. Then I provided support that the show she co-anchors has the highest viewership in the 4-6 time am slot. I did not change a anything.Patapsco913 (talk) 15:25, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * comment moved – please make sure you don't post replies in the middle of someone else's comment. --bonadea contributions talk 15:39, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Her notability is integral to the links I provided. As a co-anchor on a national news program that runs for two hours a day, Monday through Friday makes her inherently notable. The citations support that and we have her prior roles as a co-host on Fox Nation and her early role as a reporter to support it. She is also a Latina co-anchor of a top news program Patapsco913 (talk) 15:25, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Just because she's on a national news program regularly doesn't mean she herself is notable as notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Lavalizard101 (talk) 15:33, 30 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete: Fails WP:BIO, press releases do not count towards notability neither does amount of viewers. Lavalizard101 (talk) 12:47, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Viewership is used as evidence to support notability of bloggers and streams so I think it would be relevant here as well. Patapsco913 (talk) 15:28, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Viewership is not used to support notablity of bloggers and streams. Your argument shows a general unfamiliarity with the notability guidelines. Viewership is not in any of the relevant notability guidelines. Lavalizard101 (talk) 15:33, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * OK! I just read WP:BIO, and it does not say that press releases do not count towards notability nor does it say that amount of viewers doesn't matter. Are you saying that Ekali & Gravez are as notable as artists that get listened to more? Notability and number of people who view the person in a formal context (in this case Fox News, the most watched news outlet in the world) clearly matter Sucker for All (talk) 20:20, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * @Sucker for All No-one except you has conflated Press Releases being useless in verifying Notability and Notability (people).
 * Please try to understand that for a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, in multiple secondary sources which are WP:RS, and is significant coverage. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact cited, that meet these tough criteria is likely to make this article a clear "keep" (0.9 probability). Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the person is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today.
 * Press releases do not match those tough criteria. It matters not how often you state that Shimkus is notable. What matters is when and whether she has references that meet those criteria that verify notability. Today she has not. Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 20:36, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * @Sucker for All, please read WP:PRSOURCE. You are literally arguing with people who have tens of thousands of edits over more than a decade that you, with your 898 edits, understand policy better than they do. You are wasting other people's time. —valereee (talk) 20:52, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * You are being obtuse, please read WP:NEWSORG for info about press releases and their unsuitability. Theroadislong (talk) 20:29, 30 October 2021 (UTC)


 * (ec)WP:GNG point 4: For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent. aka press release don't count towards notability bc their are considered not independent. Also jsut because a rule doesn't explicitly mention something doesn't count towards notaility doesn't mean that it automatically does. Several ppl have pointed out that it doesn't, yet you appear to not be listening. And to answer your question Notability is determined by RS AS HAS BEEN SAID TO YOU MULTIPLE TIMES. Lavalizard101 (talk) 20:38, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV. The source analysis by TimTrent is accurate. What other coverage there is: There is several annoucements of taking the job of co-host. She is mentioned in passing here. There is many of the, taking the appointment type, for example:  but apart from that, not a lot. Really well known, but no real secondary coverage. Changed from Weak Keep to Delete.    scope_creep Talk  15:17, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: It seems I am not going to win this one. So how about merging it into Fox and Friends First and then maybe a couple of articles with sufficient grounds for notability (or maybe a controversy) appear and then we can refresh it. If she stays in her role for some time, she is likely to become sufficiently notable as most national anchors have articles.Patapsco913 (talk) 15:32, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * @Patapsco913 With the caveat that you would need to build consensus for including information on hosts into that article, there is nothing to prevent your doing that now. I give the caveat because there is no substantive information on hosts there currently. However, each host's presence in that article would need to be backed by Reliable sources as references. WP:BLP still applies when the person is living, even if the article is not their biography
 * The venue for that discussion is Talk:Fox & Friends First and not here. This deletion discussion has necessarily limited scope. Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 17:59, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * That is fine for me. Patapsco913 (talk) 22:39, 30 October 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.