Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geoff Bryan


 * 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The result was   Keep (non-admin closure), nomination withdrawn. Whpq (talk) 17:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Geoff Bryan

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

WITHDRAWN I don't believe that Bryan quite makes the grade in terms of the Wikipedia definition of notablity. He is a sports journalist and presenter, but that is "just a job" - like being a doctor or lawyer. I doubt if there will be any significant references which are actually about him rather than the programmes he fronts. I'm happy to be proved wrong, however dramatic (talk) 01:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC) dramatic (talk) 22:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep -- A "sports journalist and presenter" is inherently a public figure. As Geoff Bryan is a national television journalist, he regularly appears on television broadcasts watched throughout New Zealand, relevantly distinguishing his notability from an ordinary "doctor or lawyer".  I submit that this nomination is inadequately researched, and suggest that it be withdrawn forthwith. John254 02:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. One of New Zealand's most widely-known television sports presenters - as you should know, Dramatic, surely. Grutness... wha?   02:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Widely known does not necessarily equate to having biographical information in independent (e.g. not TVNZ) reliable sources. Unfortunately I have limited internet resources at present and was unable to do any research. In the past we have had a number of articles created for relatively minor journalists/ DJs etc., but I thought this was an edge case. I'm glad others have found material, something I don't think would have happened had I just slapped an unreferenced tag on the article. Nomination withdrawn. dramatic (talk) 22:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I was originally going to vote delete in agreement with the nom, in the sense that while he is well known, it is only because he is doing his job. However WP:BIO says "is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published, secondary source material". After sifting thru google, weeding out all the ones that just referred to him doing his job, I found this . So I believe he passes. I do however disagree with the argument that he is notable just because he is known from TV. That just makes him known, not necessarily notable.   Esradekan Gibb    "Talk" 02:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - 20 odd related pages on the NZ Herald website alone, interviews in The Listener and The Press, an entry in the IMDb. He is regularly in the (non-TVNZ) news as well as reporting it. I think a step was missed from WP:NOTE: "If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself". XLerate (talk) 08:32, 21 August 2008 (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.