Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Allbritton


 * 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   keep. Very weak reasoning for keep (Reuters, and definitely not the blogging). Consensus is to keep ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 12:38, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Chris Allbritton

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Subject fails to meet WP:N (both WP:BASIC and WP:AUTHOR), entry fails WP:RS. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 09:58, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Does show how easy it can be to get money out of people... Appears to be self-published, although I can't find evidence yet. It's not easy to pin the book down, unless I'm going wrong somewhere. All in all, blogging is blogging, even when crowd-funded. Willing to change my mind, as always. Peridon (talk) 15:33, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep, Seems like he's slightly more notable than the average blogger, perhaps even enough so that he warrants his own page.JoelWhy (talk) 13:26, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete agree with notability concerns. Subject seems to have written significantly more articles than articles were written about him. There is little notable details of biographical value. Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 02:59, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - Chris was the original crowd-funded blogger, and was the inspiration for many other projects, such as spot.us. He is now bureau chief for Reuters in Pakistan, and a notable journalist in his own right. -- Fuzheado | Talk 07:27, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:09, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Keep Pakistan Bureau Chief for Thomson Reuters is probably notable  enough.  DGG ( talk ) 01:19, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 19:40, 19 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak keep per DGG and based on the precedent at Articles for deletion/Pete Williams (journalist). Bearian (talk) 21:34, 26 April 2012 (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.