Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Bourchier


 * 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 as lacking sufficient indicia of notability. No prejudice against restoring to draft space, or future recreation if additional and more in-depth coverage arises. bd2412 T 01:54, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Dan Bourchier

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not all journalists are notable. I don't see what makes this person pass WP:BIO. A very minor award ("scoop of the year" award at the NT Media Awards ), no in-depth coverage of her work, just a few mention in passing and short professional bios in non-independent places, like his former workplaces etc. Just having a career doesn't make one encyclopedic. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 11:00, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 13:03, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 13:03, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 13:04, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep - easily satisfies WP:NBIO. As sourced in the article, Bourchier has held prominent television roles as reporter and correspondent at Sky News, as top-rating breakfast radio presenter in major city and as presenter of primetime news bulletin, and won a media award in 2013. He has been the subject of news articles/interviews about his personal and professional life, which a simple G search would turn up, that are (despite the nominator's claim) independent of his current/former workplace  . The article is well sourced. The nomination is quite bizarre, calling the NT Media Awards "very minor" and saying there is no coverage of "her" work despite Mr Bourchier being male (and I'm hoping that is a simple error and not relevant to the fact Bourchier is openly gay). NB. I am the article creator -- Whats new?(talk) 22:45, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Interviews are bad sources, and I stand by what I wrote in the op nomination, except the her/his copypaste typo. This journalist seems to have a fine, but non-encyclopedic career, and yes, NT Media Awards are very minor (if they weren't, we would have an article on them by now...). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:17, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:32, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom; references are either passing mentions or not independent, fails GNG.  Uninvited Company 20:52, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * How are  passing or non-independent? -- Whats new?(talk) 21:18, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * As I noted above, interviews are low quality sources. You chose to ignore this, and asked again what is the problem with them. Well, don't worry, I can direct you to WP:INTERVIEW time and time again. What the subject says about themselves is not very reliable nor neutral. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 11:17, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * INTERVIEW is an essay, not a policy or guideline. Bourchier meets the GNG -- Whats new?(talk) 12:34, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:28, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets WP:GNG, with coverage including the SMH article, an NT News Lifestyle feature years after he left the NT News, a RIOT ACT article, and others. He doesn't yet meet WP:JOURNALIST, but as he does meet WP:GNG, that's not necessary. RebeccaGreen (talk) 05:42, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Since you linked only the RIOT ACT article, I will review this: the subject is mention in passing in two paragraphs in the article. This is not in-depth coverage, so it does not help with GNG. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 11:17, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Of the other two I mentioned, one (the NT News feature) is already in the article. It is not a "professional bio", nor a mention in passing; it is definitely in-depth. I actually meant the Canberra Times article, rather than the Sydney Morning Herald article, both of which another editor linked to above. The Canberra Times includes quotes from the subject, but it is not an interview - it also includes comments and information about him. Two paragraphs in the RIOT ACT source is not "in passing". As the editor below has noted, the subject has received more non-routine coverage more often than most journalists. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:27, 26 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Weak delete Most of the coverage seems to be by the subject or routine marketing of the subject.  However, the subject does seem to be the non routine subject of coverage more often than most journalists.  I suggest WP:TOOSOON, and if the trend continues may well be notable in their own right in the future.  Aoziwe (talk) 11:36, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete – fails WP:SIGCOV; almost all coverage (of which there is little) is WP:ROUTINE or passing mentions. I'd support a redirect to 666 ABC Canberra. ––Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs)  20:28, 1 January 2019 (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.