Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Maxwell (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. Based on the hesitation of many of the "keep" !voters. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 06:49, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

David Maxwell (journalist)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not meet notability criteria. WP:CREATIVE. No third party sources. Long list of irrelevant references were removed as they stated nothing soever about the person. Mootros (talk) 02:36, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - A presenter on BBC Newsline is notable. Just because Skynews or some other BBC competitor hasn't written a gigantic article on the presenter doesn't mean they're not very high profile as this person is. Journalists don't always write stories about other journalists.  Common sense people. Removing references and external links is inappropriate in an AfD.  I fail to see how this "article improvement" is a good faith effort by someone who wants to delete that article. --Oakshade (talk) 23:09, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment He is not a presenter on BBC Newsline You must have mixed something up. Mootros (talk) 12:54, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment These references did not meet the WP:Verifiability criteria; they were NOT third-party sources. An article written by Maxwell is a primary source in terms of verifying the claim that he works for the BBC. However, as such it does not establish notability so ever. Similarly a video featuring Maxwell as a "reference" to claim that he appears in BBC videos is original research; it does not establish any notability either. If there would be an article in for example the The Times saying something about Maxwell there might be a possibility to establish notability. Mootros (talk) 12:44, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Original research is a Wikipedia user gathering information that's completely unverifiable to anyone else, ie "I went down to the BBC and they told me David Maxwell is a reporter for them. You might not see any video of him, but trust me."  Simply providing a video link showing Maxwell on the BBC is not in any manner Wikipedia's definition of "original research" as it is completely verifiable and verified by the link. --Oakshade (talk) 16:36, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * OR "This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources" I.e. notability via a list of random articles written by him. Plus he does not even have a profile on the BBC website. Where is he notable? Mootros (talk) 17:08, 20 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep, good deal of secondary sources. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 04:39, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment If so, please add them. Checking here I can't see anything that could be used. Mootros (talk) 12:42, 20 April 2013 (UTC)


 * At most weak keep. The article gives me the impression that he is a journalist who sometimes reads the news on a BBC regional station.   This is probably WP:V and not WP:OR, but I am dubious on notability.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:10, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 03:44, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar   &middot;   &middot;  14:14, 3 May 2013 (UTC)


 * possible Keep An earlier version included the sentence "He works for BBC Newsline where he presents the breakfast news, the late news and occasionally the lunchtime bulletin". If you can source this, and it should be possible, it adds considerably to the notability. Without it, we don't know if he ever presented anything but these two stories. DGG ( talk ) 17:24, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Yes that would be good, but all I have found after some searching are these two links. What are the above claims of notability are based on is unknown. I somehow have the suspicion that some of the adamant keep supporters think this is a game here to be won. I have asked to them to come forward with evidence, but nothing has happened. Mootros (talk) 05:46, 5 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Weak keep per above Crtew (talk) 06:08, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Like most articles that end up in AfD, the quality of the nominated article was atrocious. However, the deletion that has taken place since nomination errs in the other direction from improvement. I voted with an eye on the history link of this article. This article is in serious need of someone who is interested, weed out good from bad sources, and can rewrite it based on some of the sources that have been deleted.Crtew (talk) 06:17, 9 May 2013 (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.