Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Bergman (journalist)


 * 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   no consensus.  MBisanz  talk 04:45, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

David Bergman (journalist)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:GNG & WP:AUTHOR Darkness Shines (talk) 13:24, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete, as the bibliography lists Bergman's articles as references, with one exception, and doesn't include anything with independent and significant coverage of the subject.  Mephistophelian (contact)  17:09, 8 December 2012 (UTC).
 * Royal Television Society awards prima facie ought to satisfy BIO as constituting 'significant critical attention'.  Mephistophelian (contact)  18:06, 23 December 2012 (UTC).


 * Keep, I've authored this article because Bergman is the only investigative journalist who has been tracking the fortunes of the immensely portentous International Crimes Tribunal in Bangladesh. As noted in the Washington Post this tribunal is trying ten opposition leaders who are at the risk of capital punishment. David Bergman's serious journalism is objectively the best extensive treatment of this issue available, and people will want to know who he is.Aminul802 (talk) 04:56, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, I've been keeping up with the war crimes tribunal's activities for a while now, and Bergman and his blog are by far the most comprehensive, thorough, independent and investigative journalism on this topic. following anything in bangla is out of the question for myself, so his work is a great help. He's not well-known only because Bangladesh isn't geopolitically significant, but as one of the most populous countries in the world, his work is recognized as notable in informed circles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Umayma1 (talk • contribs) 02:05, 11 December 2012 (UTC)  — Umayma1 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete. Fails WP:GNG, the main source of information about him is his own blog. The International Crimes Tribunal (Bangladesh) has its own entry, referencing other media and campaign sources following the subject. If Mr Bergman meets the notability criteria in the future his entry can be re-created. -- Phazakerley  (talk) 04:09, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Lacks coverage. He may have a good blog but right now an article isn't justified. Arguments for keeping are unconvincing.--Michig (talk) 19:33, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 04:08, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 *  Delete Keep. He could be mentioned in International Crimes Tribunal (Bangladesh), but the subject has not established notability in his own right (eg winning journalist awards) Now that the award has been added, it's worth keeping. 1292simon (talk) 04:37, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - Fails WP:GNG and no real indicator of notability. The one Keep vote above isn't really a justification for a standalone article as even that editor admits the subject is "not well-known." Holyfield1998 (talk) 15:18, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Abstain : All comments above on both sides seem right and reasonable to me. I did some brief research on David Bergman (journalist) and I have found information that I believe would make him notable, however, the article would need to be expanded to show this. People are voting on what the article shows us right now. This is one of those situations where the article just needs to be developed more to make everybody happy. My suggestion would be to move this article into either the creator's sandbox or mine and let's develop it (together if you would like). I have done recoveries like this before, and, in my estimation, the article is salvageable. Crtew (talk) 16:03, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I for one didn't just vote on what the article shows, I searched for sources that would demonstrate notability and didn't find any. Could you perhaps reveal to us what you found that you feel would make him notable? If there are sources that would lead to this being kept then let's evaluate them. --Michig (talk) 16:08, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I just added some of the information I found and his 1995 documentary won a Royal Television Society award. This alone meets one of the notability requirements for intellectuals/journalists.Crtew (talk) 18:16, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Even with this addition, I'm not comfortable with some of the references used in this article. I don't think his blog bio is appropriate for Wikipedia. While it's a great place to start and good enough for a draft, it shouldn't stand alone in a Wikipedia article as a reference and should be taken as until independently verified.Crtew (talk) 18:32, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think acting as researcher on an award winning documentary is enough in itself for an article on him, but others may disagree. --Michig (talk) 18:36, 22 December 2012 (UTC) I see that he also directed it, which goes a bit further, and may be enough, but it's borderline for a separate bio. --Michig (talk) 18:40, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * He may not be a Steven Spielberg or anything but since we're considering a documentary film and he's an investigative journalist, both directing and researching the film, need to be seen in that context. The heart of an investigative film is its research. The producer Gita Sahgal, by the way, credits Bergman and his persistence for getting the film made in a published article. Crtew (talk) 20:05, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Dear Crtew: If you have a close connection with Mr. Bergman (We're considering a documentary film and he's ... both directing and researching the film") please read WP:COI before editing the article. Travelbird (talk) 09:25, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see a COI here. Could you explain? --Michig (talk) 09:29, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no conflict on my part. If you are hiring him Travelbird, then you would. But if you wanted to pass any information by the Wikipedia editors here, you can still do that on the talk page. We can use that and verify the information independently. Likewise, you can always upload a photo in Commons. Those are all accepted by the community. Crtew (talk) 15:10, 23 December 2012 (UTC) Crtew (talk) 15:10, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * This is surely a misunderstanding of Chad's use of 'we', and whether it connotes the editors participating in this discussion, which is my interpretation, or another party, e.g. a company seeking to recruit a director.  Mephistophelian (contact)  18:06, 23 December 2012 (UTC).


 * Keep: I move from abstain to keep. The award satisfies a minimal standard of notability as noted by Mephistophelian. More work is needed to find sources and I've started to add them and look for more. The assessment though at this point should stay as a stub until more information can be found and added.Crtew (talk) 19:49, 23 December 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.