Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Maceda


 * 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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 16:37, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Jim Maceda

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Previously declined at BLP Prod. Only source is WP:PRIMARY. Only findings were name-drops. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:28, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * WP:ILIKEIT. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:15, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep It can be very difficult to reference a biography of a notable but not famous journalist. First, you have to discount all the hits that are bylines to the journalists's own work. Those aren't independent. And then you have to discount sources discussing the journalist published by his/her employers. But if other reputable journalists discuss his/her work some time later, in a non-promotional context, shouldn't that count for something? And shouldn't the raw multitude of mentions count for something? I like book sources in cases like this. Clearly, we discount a book written by the subject, him/herself, but how about discussion in a book written by another employee of the same media organization? I will discount that a bit, but not entirely. Here's the bottom line: He's a working journalist with a long career, specializing as a war correspondent and foreign affairs reporter. He's not "famous", whatever that means, but he's very well known among those interested in the careers of contemporary war correspondents. Accordingly, I believe that he passes notability standards, based on mentions in a very large number of reliable sources, rather than independent, in-depth profiles in two or three reliable independent sources, which I did not find. I concede that other editors with different standards may disagree with my judgment here, and encourage other interpretations. I see this as a genuine borderline case.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  05:21, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Blah blah blah, keep because I want it kept is all I got out of your filibuster. Try again, preferably with something actually based in policy, and not just pulling stuff out of your ass. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 06:05, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * How kind, . Thanks for your collaborative, understanding attitude, and willingness to engage thoughtfully when disagreeing with another editor. I am sure that legions of uninvolved editors as well as the closing administrator will be won over by your thoughtful and persuasive response, and that this horrible article will be deleted forthwith. Thank you very much.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  06:31, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * TPH, knock it off. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:17, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I will when you tell me what part of Cullen's filibuster was based in policy. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 08:11, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No, you'll stop making personal attacks on another editor regardless of whether their AfD argument has any relation to policy whatsoever. WP:CIVIL is one of the Five Pillars, and flaunting it will have consequences. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:47, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep By sourcing a New York Times article on awards, something that was not hard to do in a Google News search by refining the parameters, I have done sufficient in my mind to save the article. WP:HEY applies. I have, naturally, entered the awards mentioned into the article, with the citation. Fiddle   Faddle  08:46, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * @ Timtrent Thank you, i was going to use that but i have been told before that awards shouldn't be listed. ACase0000 (talk) 14:29, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep per the bio added, which shows he has been a recipient of several notable awards. Delete I don't think there's really enough here for a standalone article. I found no substantial sources and the one added by Fiddle Faddle devotes not even a sentence to him and just says he won an unremarkable award. While I get what Cullen is trying to say, I'm not really sure having a long career and being mentioned a lot is enough to override. the GNG.  Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 01:18, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep I found one source about his date of birth and I think this man deserves his own article he was worked hard for 40-years in field that is not the easiest in the world [Journalism] and is a few years away from retiring, I think that it should stay. ACase0000 (talk) 14:58, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I struck the 'keep' word because this editor has made a statement headed by 'keep' already. The closing admin will note the further comment anyway. Fiddle   Faddle  15:36, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Despite my being in favour of retaining the article because of the sourcing I found, I disagree with your argument that he deserves an article because he has worked hard all his life and is near retirement age. I and many relatives have done the same. Not ine of us is notable except to those who love us. Fiddle   Faddle  15:33, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * There is a point to be made about his 40 years of service that deserves attention. NBC is an important network and to be employed by it and with that much time in service usually points to some achievement and some recognition.Crtew (talk) 04:58, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep: He satisfies several notability points for a journalist as #1, he is an award winning journalist and #2 he is used as an expert by other journalist. His career spans 40 years. He is definitely Heymann material. I have added an external link to his page that is an official NBC bio, and this can be used to make finer searches within Google and elsewhere. Crtew (talk) 02:31, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * This article definitely needs improving and the nominator was correct that in its present state it is problematic. Crtew (talk) 02:35, 27 October 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.