Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nancy Nall Derringer


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 01:53, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Nancy Nall Derringer

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Can't find any significant coverage beyond brief mentions as the person who initially uncovered a minor Bush Administration scandal. User:Pburka deprodded due to this mention that she won an award, but that's hardly enough coverage to write an article with, nor (AFAICT) are there any specific deletion criteria that consider awards for journalism Gaelan 💬✏️ 20:53, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Gaelan 💬✏️ 20:53, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:12, 11 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment. Searching for journalists is notoriously difficult because so many of the hits are their own bylines. However I found that, in addition to the Hoosier Press Award, she was named a University of Michigan Knight-Wallace Journalism Fellow in 2003 (U Mich press release, New York Times), and she shows up several times in Dead Before Deadline (University of Akron Press, 2004). She's also got a handful of GScholar citations (mostly as NN Derringer), but not enough to make a WP:NPROF claim. I think she's clearly more notable than the average journalist. pburka (talk) 21:37, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. After stewing on this for a few days, I think she's sufficiently notable. The Knight-Wallace Fellowship is a significant award, and combined with her big plagiarism story, I'm convinced of notability. pburka (talk) 16:37, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  23:56, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - Simply winning a notable fellowship doesn't inherently make one notable. Yes, she has done good work, but, that doesn't mean she merits a Wikipedia article. We'd have every single journalist with an Edward R. Murrow Award with an article. I did my due diligence and found little to no sources that cover the subject significantly aside from interview/mention about the fellowship and her mentions/interviews in the plagiarism case, which I think is borderline WP:NOTNEWS. But, none of it is enough to convince me the subject is notable enough to merit inclusion with significant coverage. Missvain (talk) 17:28, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. It's my opinion that we should have articles for every Edward R. Murrow Award winner. They're all notable per WP:ANYBIO#1. pburka (talk) 22:09, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Ha! Well, I admit - one of my bestfriends is a Murrow winner and she's basically not notable outside of winning the award and it was only covered by the media outlet she worked for at the time. So... will take a lot to convince me that every award winner of a Murrow award meets general notability guidelines due to WP:INHERITED. Missvain (talk) 17:22, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm puzzled by the reference to NOTINHERITED. That essay says that people aren't automatically notable by dint of a relationship to a notable person or organization. Being associated with an award (e.g. a Nobel Prize bureaucrat) would be an "inherited" claim, but receiving an award (e.g. a Nobel Prize winner) is evidence of notability. pburka (talk) 21:16, 24 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete: per nom. Not enough to pass notability for BLP. Kolma8 (talk) 17:05, 25 May 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.