Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Donovan


 * 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. ✗ plicit  00:17, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

David Donovan

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Does not meet notability guidelines. The sources offered do not have significant coverage of this person themselves; some of them are his works of journalism, or comments by him, which do not establish notability. 331dot (talk) 13:25, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. 331dot (talk) 13:25, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. 331dot (talk) 13:25, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. 331dot (talk) 13:25, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. 331dot (talk) 13:25, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Your argument merely suggests that the article should be expanded upon, which could be done if those with vested interests left the article alone. I should note that those with vendettas against Independent Media (let's be honest, that's exactly what this is, as we never see debates about deleting pages of journalists from mainstream media) have already removed a section of the article, without cause that included additional sources.

The notion that a journalist who is the founder and publisher of an online news publication website should not have a Wikipedia article is ridiculous. As founder of Independent Australia, Donovan is far more notable than your average Australian journalist (many whom feature on Wikipedia). Donovan also has 36k followers on Twitter, which is a clear example of notability given that Twitter is an unofficial engagement and distribution platform for Australian journalism.

The changing news/media landscape in Australia is seeing many turn away from mainstream media to independent media and as a popular independent online media source, Independent Australia itself is noteworthy and therefore its founder and publisher, with a significant online following must also be notable.

It would be a real shame for Wikipedia to bury its head in the sand and discrimiante against journalists purely because they don't serve a mega media overlord.

The sources are also independent from Donovan and come from credible media such as the ABC, SMH and Courier Mail, there is also references to publications, some which I believe are peer-reviewed.

The fact that this article is not an example of a good article, does not mean that the subject is not noteworthy, which seems to be the basis for the above argument. People who AREN'T noteworthy aren't publishers of online news and they don't have 36k followers on social media. Simba1409 (talk) 13:44, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Social media followers are not part of the notability criteria. People can have five billion followers and not merit an article, and can have five followers and merit one. 331dot (talk) 13:51, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * If you have independent reliable sources that discuss Mr. Donovan in depth, please offer them and/or put them in the article. This has nothing to do with an anti-independent media effort, of which I am certainly not a part. And given the internet, anyone on Earth can publish news as they see it, it doesn't make them notable. 331dot (talk) 13:52, 2 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Then Wikipedia is stuck in the dark ages, a social media following IS DIRECTLY related to the notability of a journalist.


 * Your argument for 'anyone can publish news' is misinformed. Creating a news publication website takes time, effort and money.


 * I mentioned the changing landscape of media in Australia, which Donovan is part of via IA. This is important in terms of notability.


 * You claim not to be against independent media but I don't see you trying to take down pages of other journalists working for mainstream media. Simba1409 (talk) 14:01, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * If you want to add social media followers to the notability criteria, you are free to work to do that. I would oppose doing so, for various reasons, including the fact that it is easily gamed and also that many people click to follow someone and never go there again.
 * As a volunteer, no, I don't have time to go on a crusade against journalist articles among the six million plus articles here- I deal with what is in front of me, and consider each on their own merits. You too are free to do so and nominate articles for deletion- it's likely that you are correct and that there are other articles on journalists that are inappropriate. See other stuff exists. Whether its "independent media" or a corporation is not relevant to me. We're not here to promote one at the expense of the other or vice versa0- just to summarize independent reliable sources.
 * I could get space on a host and create a website to publish news on in five minutes if I was so motivated.
 * You mention a "changing landscape" but do not describe articles independent of Mr. Donovan that discuss how he was involved with it. The article currently just tells what he has done, not why it is important or its impact. If you think it does, we will just have to disagree on that. 331dot (talk) 14:10, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * You are displaying your lack of social media and general internet knowledge.


 * Social media as criteria could clearly also use statistics on engagement and interactions to determine whether one's following has been gamed or if their following legitimately reflects their notability.


 * Yes, anyone can create a website - but that doesn't mean it will be seen. Donovan's news publication website is visited daily by subscribers and news readers because of HIS NOTABILITY, it is also a member of the Australian Press Council, which you can't just do 'in five minutes'. You could create a website for news now, but no one would see it, no one would know it exists. To run a popular news website against the concentration of mainstream media is clearly notable. Simba1409 (talk) 14:17, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * We'll just have to disagree about the impact of social media follower numbers. As I said, you are free to work to add that to the notability criteria(others have tried and failed, but maybe you will break through). 331dot (talk) 14:20, 2 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Lots of text above with no links to sources. Coverage by independent (in the sense of having no connection to the subject) reliable sources is the thing we typically base "notability" on (rather than arguments about what inherently makes someone notable like running a paper, having a certain number of followers, etc.). Articles are typically kept or deleted on that basis alone, and conspiratorial accusations against other editors just hurts your case, frankly. (For me: I've never heard of him, never heard of the publication, and don't live in Australia -- I watch the list of all journalism deletion discussions). Journalists and publications are always really hard when it comes to notability because their success isn't typically based on articles written about them but by articles citing them. For that reason, there's a rare alternative path to notability: WP:JOURNALIST. Note, however, that the bar for the more vague terms there is typically quite high, because the nature of Wikipedia is such that exceptions to notability being equal to "things that have received significant coverage in reliable independent sources" should be extremely rare. So "widely cited by peers or successors" needs an awful lot of top-tier publications citing him (without having him on staff). &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 14:46, 2 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete - Also, I suspect there's continuing sock/meat puppetry around the topic-in-question and breaching of WP:NOTADVOCATE, to boot. GoodDay (talk) 15:30, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep: The above antics aren't helpful, but the subject is notable enough. He's received in-depth coverage by the Sydney Morning Hearld, ; The Australian , ; The Guardian ; Crikey , ; The Times and other publications. He also received some coverage in a few academic sources (Project Republic: Plans and Arguments for a New Australiaby Frank Bongiorno;  Journalism and Climate Crisis by Robert A. Hackett, et al.) Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 04:54, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The Sydney Herald pieces have quotes from him, but little else about his importance. Quotes are a primary source. I cannot examine The Australian pieces due to a paywall. The Guardian piece just describes his challenging of a politician, which is standard work for a journalist. The Crikey source is an interview with him, another primary source. I can only see the beginning of The Times piece and it seems to be discussing republicanism in Australia. 331dot (talk) 22:43, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It should be noted that the views on the notability of an Australian journalist, from someone who does not live in Australia, should be disregarded. I'm sure many people overseas don't know who our Prime Minister is either. Notability is surely relative to where one lives?


 * For someone not in Australia to say "I haven't heard of them" doesn't hold much sway for me.


 * One of those Australian articles is written solely on Donovan's work, an attack article on Donovan essentially, for a mainstream media source to write an article criticising an independent journalist is surely an example of notability, if he wasn't notable, they wouldn't bother.


 * One of the SMH articles is about his work and investigations as is the Guardian article, to dismiss this from notability seems incredibly biased.


 * There is also no dispute/claim against the other published journal references.


 * I'm sure there are more secondary sources out there, I'll see what I can find. Simba1409 (talk) 23:12, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

The above is a slur and clearly, a personal attack that suggests a personal issue with the subject and this SkyRing's views should be removed from consideration.
 * Delete There is currently a sockpuppet investigation open against this account. A day after a previous account was indef-banned for socking and COI, this account resumes operations after a ten year hiatus by taking up exactly the same cudgels with exactly the same behaviour. Quack. As for notability of this subject, if Wikipedia had an article on every person mentioned in a newspaper, it would be a great deal larger than it already is. The subject's claims to fame seem to be that he ran into a fence as a child, he worked for the Australian Republicans, he runs a political opinion blog, and is a tendentious editor. See discussion here. --Pete (talk) 04:59, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Independent Australia is NOT an opinion blog, it is a member of the Australian Press Council and they do publish news, along with anyalyis and opinion like every other news publisher. If SkyRing wants to make a case for deletion, they should do so without resorting to lies.

The sockpuppet investigation against me will come to nothing. Simba1409 (talk) 07:16, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The timing of your return & your choice of attempting to save this bio article. Quite amazing. GoodDay (talk) 07:31, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The gatekeeper cult mentality of who can and can't do what on Wikipedia is disgusting. I was browsing Wikipedia, saw an article up for deletion that I disagreed with and took action. Get over it. --Simba1409 (talk) 07:39, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Would you (at least) re-learn to indent properly? PS- You're not fooling anybody, so you get over it. GoodDay (talk) 07:47, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Can you limit your comments to the notability/deletion discussion? Rather than making false accusations with no evidence. --Simba1409 (talk) 07:50, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The same could go for you, please. 331dot (talk) 07:51, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Nonsense, I've only responded to the accusations made against me and the rest of my comments bar the one above have been related to the notability discussion.--Simba1409 (talk) 08:14, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * You, Simba1409, are the one saying who can and can't do what on Wikipedia, with your racist statement, "the views on the notability of an Australian journalist, from someone who does not live in Australia, should be disregarded." Phil Bridger (talk) 09:51, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Ridiculous, my claim is that notability is relative. I wouldn't be arguing "I've never heard of _______" if they were a journalist in another country, the fact that I don't live in that country greatly reduces my chances of having heard of them. Nothing to do with race, simple common sense. Simba1409 (talk) 10:07, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * On that note, it would be a rare Australian who has heard of David Donovan. Could you just run us through the exact process where after ten years of never touching Wikipedia, never logging in, you suddenly go full-tilt into defending this guy? Did someone tell you about it? You seem to have a remarkable knowledge for someone coming in cold. And what's your stance on the football naming RFC? That's something we could work together on if this account survives the sock investigation. . --Pete (talk) 16:55, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The only person who said, "I've never heard of him", was User:Rhododendrites, and that was not as part of an argument for deletion. I am perfectly capable of judging the notability of subjects in Australia, the US, the Philippines etc. even though I don't live in any of those countries (places that don't use English much are more of a problem, but I can make sense of most Germanic, Slavic and Romance languages), as notability depends on what is written about subjects in reliable sources rather than personal knowledge. We shouldn't put up with racist comments that only people who live in a particular country can determine notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:17, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I have no issue with an argument being made from anywhere in the world on the sources/references, as I stated for someone outside of Australia to say 'I haven't heard of him' isn't relevant. I haven't heard of many journos outside of Australia and this would be the case for the majority of people in the world. I never said that only people in Australia can weigh in or make an argument based on the sources, you are twisting what I said.Simba1409 (talk) 10:21, 4 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Neutral Admin comment I have blocked from this page while this SPI plays out. Regardless of that decision, the editor has weighed in here and now it's time for uninvolved editors to have their opportunity without being bludgeoned. Should Simba be found not to be a sock and this AfD goes longer than a week, can re-evaluate their participation here.  Star   Mississippi  14:46, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Being quoted a few times in the news does not satisfy WP:SIGCOV. OhNo itsJamie Talk 23:29, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:BIO for lack of indepth third party coverage. Having a "large" social media following does not add to notability. LibStar (talk) 01:27, 6 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete - for the record, I'm Australian and I haven't heard of him either. But that's irrelevant, really. What matters is whether or not he has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. From what I can see, the sources seem to mostly be by him, rather than about him. Sources by him do nothing to help meet our inclusion criteria. Also, for the record, I read his material and its interesting and quite clever. The tactics of his supporters here? Less clever. Certainly happy to accept this might be a case of WP:TOOSOON but given the history, this title probably needs to be salted until such time as that can be substantiated.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 05:30, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete No evidence of notability, founder of a non-notable news website. Brayan ocaner (talk) 16:32, 7 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.