Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emanuele Berry


 * 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Dr. Universe (talk) 17:20, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Emanuele Berry

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Berry has had a short career so far and has not yet reached the level of coverage required to sustain a Wikipedia article. She does not meet WP:CREATIVE, and fails WP:GNG with no significant coverage provided by independent reliable sources. The secondary sources cited are all passing references. ninety:one  09:42, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ninety:one   09:42, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. ninety:one   09:42, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. ninety:one   09:42, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:50, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:50, 6 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. I've added several additional non-primary references on Berry, including interviews with The St. Louis Public Radio, Deadline, Vulture and coverage of her reporting in E! news. The article should now meet the minimum for WP:CREATIVE, WP:THREESOURCES and should not fail WP:GNG given the significant coverage on her work. Rayopk1 (talk) 13:56, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid none of those meet the GNG. She was working for St Louis Public Radio at the time, so that's not a secondary source for an article about her, nor can it be said to be independent because she wrote it herself. Deadline is the briefest of passing mentions in a regurgitated press release, as is Vulture, and E! literally just mentions her name as the interviewer in coverage of a story about someone else. It's not just "three sources that mention the subject in some way" that we need, it's " in that are  of the subject". ninety:one   14:15, 6 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I haven't had a chance to examine the coverage yet, but re "short career", executive editor of This American Life (arguably the most respected and highly produced show in American radio) is a highly significant role. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 15:59, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * That's what I first thought - but hers is a brand-new position of unclear importance, and shouldn't be confused with that of Ira Glass, the very-much notable and long-running executive producer. Glass would undoubtedly meet many of the criteria in WP:CREATIVE because of the impact of his work, but no matter what her title, I can't see that Berry does at this stage. ninety:one  23:15, 6 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Very weak Keep, as sources from Vulture and E!, ya know, those independent from Berry, discussed her work covering bigger topics. However, I would hope for far more to make my Keep strong. Additionally, "short career" is subjective and not a comment on the coverage of the topic, which is what we normally measured when determining whether an article should be kept or deleted. 👨x🐱 (talk) 17:24, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The Vulture article starts with a selection of unrelated snippets before leading into the actual subject of the article, and in respect of her it simply says: "Emanuele Berry is This American Life’s new executive editor. A former editor and producer at Gimlet Media, Berry joined TAL last year." It's not close to being significant coverage and certainly doesn't discuss her work. The E! article looks like it might come closer at first glance, but it only namechecks Berry as being the host of a show on which someone else said something, which the article then goes on to discuss - there is no further mention, let alone discussion, of her, nor the show or the interview. I agree both looked promising but they just don't meet the requirements for GNG.
 * I only mentioned her "short carer" by way of noting that although there is a good chance that on her current trajectory Berry could, in ten or twenty years' time, start to become the subject of significant coverage, she's not at that stage yet. There are a lot of early career creative professionals getting articles created at the moment and it's important to be able to contextualise this given the numerous, but often a little too weak, claims to notability in many of them. ninety:one  23:28, 6 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep Meets WP:CREATIVE per Rayopk's argument. SBKSPP (talk) 01:43, 14 July 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.