Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christopher Sign


 * 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. The sense of the discussion that the subject was not notable independent of ONEEVENT. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  14:48, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Christopher Sign

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

PROD was removed by article creator, who claimed Sign was awarded an Emmy and Murrow. However, neither award was for Sign or in his name. A google search reveals nothing. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 08:13, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. &mdash; Coffee  //  have a cup  //  beans  // 09:16, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. &mdash; Coffee  //  have a cup  //  beans  // 09:16, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. &mdash; Coffee  //  have a cup  //  beans  // 09:16, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:03, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:03, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete the article creator's claims are clearly false and Sign is only noted for one incident. To me, that's not enough. Lepricavark (talk) 22:37, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep, while he is noted for one incident, it is a rather major incident with national coverage referring to his involvement in breaking the story. There are many more sources than the one in the article.  See, , , , ,  and he was interviewed about this on the O'Reilly Factor.  Notable under WP:BASIC, with note that WP:ONEEVENT says "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate."  A major story in the 2016 US presidential campaign is highly significant and his role within it is large. The article certainly needs expansion.  MB  18:48, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:56, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:ROUTINE and WP:BLP1E. The "one event" mentioned earlier doesn't even have its own article, and I don't consider other media sources' coverage of his coverage of a story to be independent, no matter how many of them picked it up. shoy (reactions) 14:49, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * delete after reading this AFD, I went to the article to see what major story this journalist broke, it was good reporting, but it was hardly a major event.  And, even if it had been, as User:Shoy correctly states, there would have to be significant coverage of his role in that event.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:29, 16 August 2016 (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.