Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nick Christensen (journalist)


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:44, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Nick Christensen (journalist)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

This subject fails WP:GNG because he is not the subject of coverage at all. Where this subject is mentioned, there is no in-depth coverage of him, and the topic is someone or something else entirely. The most germane coverage I could find to the subject as a person, here, actually covers shrinking Portland journalism, including this subject's journalism which is essentially "public relations." None of this subject's accomplishments is apparently noteworthy or significant to the tune of WP:ANYBIO. In fact, it's difficult to tell why any of it actually merits mention, aside from WP:RESUME purposes. See 1, 2, and 3 for an idea of how many awards and winners there are every year for the state-wide Nevada Press Ass'n prizes. See 4 for the Oregon Newspapers Foundation's contest winners for 2008 alone; for what it's worth, several other non-notable individuals won more prizes than Christensen. Between the local nature and the large numbers of other "bests" awarded each year by these groups, the awards and accomplishments in question aren't actually additive toward an encyclopedically distinguished career. JFHJr (㊟) 02:02, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - Personally, I found it rather interesting that the Metro even exists; this combination municipal government, and doubly interesting that it has its own "news" arm that helps it report on its own activities. While Nick Christensen is just a lowly reporter/publicist for this entity, I think it is actually helpful and interesting to have in Wikipedia given the somewhat unique nature of his job and the group for which he works. I believe he's notable enough, and in simply a non-Wiki definition of that word, I find the subject of this article notable and interesting. If this AfD does end up wiping this article away, I think it would be interesting to have an article on how the Metro or other such entities handle their own news and that it would be a Wikipedia-worthy topic. -- Avanu (talk) 05:23, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment — You seem to concede that 1) this subject is "just a lowly reporter," and 2) some topic other than this living person is likely notable (PR journalism?). Would you mind explaining why your vote is to !keep this BLP, and what notability standards are met in Wiki terms? Finding something interesting, in this case other than the subject himself, and in "simply a non-Wiki definition of [notable]" doesn't seem to be a valid ground. Certainly, if anything contained in this non-notable journalist's biography is noteworthy, it may appear in articles about the notable topic itself. JFHJr (㊟) 14:14, 20 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - Per nom. Doesn't meet the standard for notability. That some may find it "interesting" that Metro "even exists" argues for improvement of the Metro article and is not a reason to keep a probable vanity page. Peezy1001 (talk) 01:48, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:40, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 27 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - strange one. The edit summaries in the history suggest it was prodded for deletion twice before and the prod was contested both times but there is no record on the talk page of any contest or any discussion about whether the article should be deleted. That aside, I struggle to see how the subject meets WP:GNG. The vast majority of the "sources" are written by him, not about him and those that are about him don't suggest "significant coverage" and are fairly WP:BLP1E in nature - they seem to relate to a meeting where he opposed a stadium, or something. It's not really clear - certainly not clear enough denote significant coverage enough to meet WP:GNG as far as I'm concerned. If nothing else, I think amending the title to remove "(journalist)" is order - he might have been, once, but he clearly isn't now. Stalwart 111  (talk) 02:29, 27 September 2012 (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.