Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gerry Brooks


 * 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. Proto :: type  10:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Gerry Brooks


Local news anchor. No indication of passing WP:BIO. Speedy tag removed. Pan Dan 15:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete I agree, no sign of passing WP:BIO Lurker  oi!  15:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete unless sources are provided to assert his notability. - Mailer Diablo 17:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nomination. Afv2006 18:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Anchorperson at main NBC affiliate of Hartford. Won 2 local Emmys in major market.  Added a couple of refs. I'll likely add more. --Oakshade 16:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)  Amendment to comment - per Pan Dan's comments below, I would prefer a WP:RS regarding the 2 Emmys, but the rest of opinion is same.  --Oakshade 23:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Isn't a local emmy par for the course for a local anchor? I would say so, given that I can find no outside sources that have made (a non-trivial) note of this.  (See Google, also checked Lexis-Nexis; the NBC-30 profile is obviously not an outside source)  Pan Dan 22:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * response - That he's a news-anchor for a major network affiliate in a major market is my primary point (even on the panel in the Lieberman-Lamont debate). The only NBC-30 source supported part is the 2 Emmys.  As I can't find records of local Emmys in that part of the country, for now I'll let that part of your argument stand (although I personally assume good faith and have no reason to think that NBC-30 is lying).  But even with no Emmys, he's still notable. --Oakshade 23:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Re: "I have no reason to think that NBC-30 is lying" -- I agree with you, but the point of demanding outside sources is, in general, to address concerns of notability, not just verifiability. In Gerry Brooks's case, if nobody other than his employer has taken note of his getting an emmy, then his getting an emmy is not genuinely notable.  Pan Dan 23:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Per strictly following WP policy, I'll agree with you on that Emmy point. --Oakshade 23:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) As for being a news anchor for a major network affiliate in a major market and being on the Senate debate panel -- again, those aren't valid claims to notability unless outside sources have made a nontrivial note of them (e.g. the New York Times runs a story headlined "GERRY BROOKS, HOSTING U.S. SENATE DEBATE, MAKES A BIG SPLASH") but I certainly wouldn't expect any outside sources to make such a non-trivial note of that, and my expectation seems to be backed up by the fact that no one can find non-trivial sources on him, even at the local level. Pan Dan 23:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that him just being on the panel of that debate is one of the points that makes him notable. There doesn't need to be a headline story on that statement, just a confirmation citation that the statement is correct and a reliable source (in this case, the Washington Post) has provided that.  --Oakshade 23:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * (1) Yes, the Washington Post transcript of the debate certainly provides confirmation. And I don't know why you removed the emmy material from the article -- I thought we agreed that the NBC-30 website is a reliable source.  The problem with both of these sources is that they don't show that Gerry Brooks is notable -- the WP transcript because it's trivial (with respect to Brooks) and the NBC-30 site because it's not an outside source.  (2) Now, you seem to be arguing that his being a news anchor for an NBC affiliate and his having been on that panel confer automatic, inherent notability regardless of whether outside sources have taken non-trivial note.  You're certainly entitled to your opinion there, but I would argue against us Wikipedians arguing that anything is inherently notable.  It's much easier just to use the outside-sources criterion -- that way we don't have to  argue in the abstract about whether this attribute or that attribute (being an anchor for example) makes someone notable -- we rely on the publishers of outside sources to make that hard judgment for us.  Pan Dan 00:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * "Now, you seem to be arguing that his being a news anchor for an NBC affiliate and his having been on that panel confer automatic, inherent notability regardless of whether outside sources have taken non-trivial note." ...Bingo...  If no outside sources establishing notability of this person exist, I'd still vote keep. I think network affiliate television anchor persons in large markets are inherently notable.   That's my opinion and I never claimed otherwise.     --Oakshade 01:45, 28 November 2006 (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.