Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jason Agnew


 * 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. postdlf (talk) 22:21, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Jason Agnew

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Only very local sources for notability  DGG ( talk ) 01:21, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed, of the four sources here two are primary ones (i.e. his profiles on the webpages of organizations he's directly involved with), and the other two are community newspapers of the type whose coverage focus is too localized to prove that a person belongs in an encyclopedia with an international audience. Metroland weeklies would acceptable for some additional confirmation of facts after enough "major media" sourcing had been added to cover off his basic notability, but they cannot confer notability if they are the best sources you can come up with. (Although I can't prove anything, I have to note that this article in this form is exactly the sort of quasi-promotional, badly sourced mess that normally sets off my "subject is trying to create an article about himself for publicity purposes" WP:COI alarm.) No prejudice against recreation in the future if better sourcing than this can be brought into the mix, but in this state it's definitely a delete. Bearcat (talk) 02:36, 19 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Weak keep - The subject has received adequate coverage in reliable sources, thus meeting WP:BASIC, although not by a strong margin. Source examples include:
 * "Agnew lays down The LAW on Tiny Talent Time". Canoe.ca.
 * "Bishop Allen Academy turns out BiteTV's latest on-air personality". Inside Toronto.
 * "Etobicoke comedian takes the reins as new host of Tiny Talent Time reboot". Inside Toronto.
 * "Celebrity Spaces with Jason Agnew". ''Toronto Sun.
 * – NorthAmerica1000 06:43, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Inside Toronto is a Metroland community weekly, and thus does not count toward getting a person over WP:GNG (I already explained why in my earlier comment.) And the Toronto Sun link you provided is a "peek inside this person's condo" feature in the Homes section — which is also not the kind of coverage it takes to get a person over the bar (it counts for about as much as the "What are you wearing today?" column in the fashion section, because it's not substantive coverage of anything encyclopedically relevant about the person.) The Canoe link is a good source, but not enough by itself. Bearcat (talk) 21:04, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The first four paragraphs of the Toronto Sun article provide biographical information about the subject and his becoming the host of a television program. NorthAmerica1000 23:17, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I have changed my !vote above to weak keep, as per the local nature of some of the sources I provided. NorthAmerica1000 00:14, 21 October 2014 (UTC)


 * keep Northamerica1000's reference collection is enough to scrape over the line. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:39, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - I'm not convinced by the "only local coverage" argument in discounting passing WP:GNG, particularly when that "local" place is a major metropolitan area of over 5.5 million people. If coverage was only from the Podunk Gazette, I'd consider that it might not have notability outside of a very limited geographical location and population.  I don't see Inside Toronto as a source to discount simply because it's published weekly and not "major" enough just as the weekly and not relatively "major" The Village Voice or LA Weekly wouldn't be discounted as valid sources for the same reasons. --Oakshade (talk) 21:59, 27 October 2014 (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.